@jefflewis.bsky.social
⚖️ Appellate, anti-SLAPP and general civil litigation http://www.JeffLewisLaw.com. 🎙Co-Host of http://calpodcast.com. 🐉 D&D nerd. Los Angeles, California Signal: slapplaw.99 #AppellateSky #lawsky
Speechless. Government moves to not move to dismiss law firm EO appeals.
03.03.2026 17:33 — 👍 246 🔁 55 💬 29 📌 30
“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—“regulate” and “importation”—the
President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate,
for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.”
SCOTUS kills Trump's use of tariffs under IEEPA - and indicates will reject any tariffs imposed based on "ambiguous" statutory interpretation
We will see if other tariffs using other statutes survive - but this blows a gigantic hole in Trump's policies.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
!["On December 2, 1783, then-Commander-in-Chief George Washington penned: “America is open to receive not only the Opulent & respected Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions.”1
More than two centuries later, Congress reaffirmed President Washington’s vision by establishing the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a (TPS statute). It provides humanitarian relief to foreign nationals in the United States who come from disaster-stricken countries. It also brings in substantial revenue, with TPS holders generating $5.2 billion in taxes annually. See Part VI.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has a different take. [screenshot of tweet].](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv/bafkreicrroq5taft777rmau2ffjlsphbcatlxnwwigf2yekoke533yycim)
"On December 2, 1783, then-Commander-in-Chief George Washington penned: “America is open to receive not only the Opulent & respected Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions.”1 More than two centuries later, Congress reaffirmed President Washington’s vision by establishing the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a (TPS statute). It provides humanitarian relief to foreign nationals in the United States who come from disaster-stricken countries. It also brings in substantial revenue, with TPS holders generating $5.2 billion in taxes annually. See Part VI. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has a different take. [screenshot of tweet].
So says the official responsible for overseeing the TPS program. And one of those (her word) “damn” countries is Haiti. Relevant here, three days before making the above post, Secretary Noem announced she would terminate Haiti’s TPS designation as of February 3, 2026. See 90 Fed. Reg. 54733 (Nov. 28, 2025) (Termination). Plaintiffs are five Haitian TPS holders. They are not, it emerges, “killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies.” They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease, Dkt. 90 (Second Am. Compl. (SAC)) ¶ 1; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank, id. ¶ 2; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department, id. ¶ 3; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major, id. ¶ 4; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse, id. ¶ 5. They claim that Secretary Noem’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Government counters that the Court does not have jurisdiction, and, in any case, the Secretary did not violate the law. Plaintiffs seek to stay the Secretary’s decision under 5 U.S.C. § 705 pending the outcome of this litigation. See Dkt. 81 (§ 705 Mot.). To decide their motion, the Court considers first whether it has jurisdiction. It does. See Part II. It then considers: whether Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; whether they will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; and whether a merged balance of the equities and public interest analysis favors a stay. See Part III. Each element favors Plaintiffs. See Parts IV, V, and VI. Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely. Secretary Noem
![has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk—twelve countries up,
twelve countries down. See Section IV.A.2. Her conclusion that Haiti (a majority nonwhite
country) faces merely “concerning” conditions cannot be squared with the “perfect storm of
suffering” and “staggering” “humanitarian toll” described in page-after-page of the Certified
Administrative Record (CAR). See Section IV.A.3.a. She ignored Congress’s requirement that
she “review the conditions” in Haiti only “after” consulting “with appropriate agencies.” 8
U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(A); see Section IV.A.1. Indeed, she did not consult other agencies at all.
See id. Her “national interest” analysis focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here
illegally, ignoring that Haitian TPS holders already live here, and legally so. See Section
IV.A.3.b. And though she states that the analysis must include “economic considerations,” she
ignores altogether the billions Haitian TPS holders contribute to the economy. See id.
The Government’s primary response is that the TPS statute gives the Secretary
unbounded discretion to make whatever determination she wants, any way she wants. And, yes,
the statute does grant her some discretion. But not unbounded discretion. To the contrary,
Congress passed the TPS statute to standardize the then ad hoc temporary protection system—to
replace executive whim with statutory predictability. See Section I.A.
As to irreparable harm, the Government contends that, at most, the harms to Haitian TPS
holders are speculative. But the Department of State (State) warns [screenshot]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv/bafkreid3cmawech25ummuj2tjvgxsrvufma2kmrijlfpglalwddd3qkikq)
has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk—twelve countries up, twelve countries down. See Section IV.A.2. Her conclusion that Haiti (a majority nonwhite country) faces merely “concerning” conditions cannot be squared with the “perfect storm of suffering” and “staggering” “humanitarian toll” described in page-after-page of the Certified Administrative Record (CAR). See Section IV.A.3.a. She ignored Congress’s requirement that she “review the conditions” in Haiti only “after” consulting “with appropriate agencies.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(A); see Section IV.A.1. Indeed, she did not consult other agencies at all. See id. Her “national interest” analysis focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian TPS holders already live here, and legally so. See Section IV.A.3.b. And though she states that the analysis must include “economic considerations,” she ignores altogether the billions Haitian TPS holders contribute to the economy. See id. The Government’s primary response is that the TPS statute gives the Secretary unbounded discretion to make whatever determination she wants, any way she wants. And, yes, the statute does grant her some discretion. But not unbounded discretion. To the contrary, Congress passed the TPS statute to standardize the then ad hoc temporary protection system—to replace executive whim with statutory predictability. See Section I.A. As to irreparable harm, the Government contends that, at most, the harms to Haitian TPS holders are speculative. But the Department of State (State) warns [screenshot]
Dkt. 100 (§ 705 Reply) at 20–21.4 “Do not travel to Haiti for any reason” does not exactly scream, as Secretary Noem concluded, suitable for return. And so, the Government studiously does not argue that Plaintiffs will suffer no harm if removed to Haiti. Instead, it argues Plaintiffs will not certainly suffer irreparable harm because DHS might not remove them. But this fails to take Secretary Noem at her word: “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.” See Section IV.B.2.b. Finally, the balance of equities and public interest favor a stay. The Government does not cite any reason termination must occur post haste. Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight. She complains of strains to our economy. Her answer? Turn employed lawful immigrants who contribute billions in taxes into the legally unemployable. She complains of strains to our healthcare system. Her answer? Turn the insured into the uninsured. This approach is many things—in the public interest is not one of them. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for a Stay Under 5 U.S.C. § 705, Dkt. 81.
Even if you don't have time to read all 83 pages of Judge Reyes's opinion barring the Trump administration from rescinding Temporary Protected Status for 350,000+ Haitians, please at least check out the four-page introduction.
It's a tour de force:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
My interview with ABC about Don Lemon abcnews.go.com/US/video/ame...
01.02.2026 00:35 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
FILED January 31, 2026 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Jaemie Herndon DEPUTY ADRIAN CONEJO ARIAS, and L.C.R., a Minor Child by and through His Parent and Guardian Adrian Conejo Arias, Petitioners, VS. KRISTI NOEM, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; PAMELA BONDI, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States; TODD LYONS, in His Official Capacity as Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAREN MARGOLIN, in His Official Capacity as Acting Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review; and JOHN DOE, in His Official Capacity as the Warden of the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Dilley, Texas, Respondents. CIVIL CASE NO. SA-26-CV-415-FB § OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COURT
Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. That is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Constitution of these United States trumps this administration's detention of petitioner Adrian Conejo Arias and his minor son, L.C.R. The Great Writ and release from detention are GRANTED pursuant to the attached Judgment. Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency. And the rule of law be damned.
![Ultimately, Petitioners may, because of the arcane United States immigration system, return to
their home country, involuntarily or by self-deportation. But that result should occur through a more
orderly and humane policy than currently in place.
Philadelphia, September 17, 1787: "Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have?" "A republic, if you
can keep it."
With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike,
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 31st day of February [sic], 2026.
Fred Biery
FRED BIERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Credit: Bystander
Matthew 19:14
John 11:35](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreiak3ebffxgjk622vrkrsj2zbsqdvs63ap6mz7sm3xinrcofrpxky4@jpeg)
Ultimately, Petitioners may, because of the arcane United States immigration system, return to their home country, involuntarily or by self-deportation. But that result should occur through a more orderly and humane policy than currently in place. Philadelphia, September 17, 1787: "Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have?" "A republic, if you can keep it." With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike, It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 31st day of February [sic], 2026. Fred Biery FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Credit: Bystander Matthew 19:14 John 11:35
BREAKING: Federal judge orders Adrian Conejo Arias and his minor son, L.C.R., released.
"The Great Writ and release from detention are GRANTED."
"Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster."
"Don't worry, I've got you"
‘For Alex’
Alex Jeffrey Pretti
1988 - 2026 rest in peace sir..🕊️
Beautiful tribute by illustrator MJ.Hiblen (@mjhiblenart on Instagram)...😢
This development would've been extraordinary, especially coming from Chief Judge Schiltz, even *before* last week's contretemps over DOJ's (now-dropped) attempt to strong-arm him into signing arrest warrants for the other five Cities Church protestors.
Schiltz isn't just talking about *this* case.
BREAKING:
Minnesota's chief federal judge has demanded the acting head of ICE personally appear in court Friday to explain what the judge described as repeated failures to comply with dozens of court orders amid its enforcement efforts in the state.
Screenshot of a TikTok video with error message at top saying “your video is under review and can’t be shared right now.”
This morning, I recorded a video on TikTok about why DHS’s arguments for the power to enter homes without judicial warrants in immigration cases are bunk.
Nine hours later, TikTok still says my video is “under review,” and can’t be shared.
Well, here’s a link:
georgetown.box.com/v/Vladeck-IC...
Skeleton holding “resist fascism” sign
Morning walk in my neighborhood. Good to scout out the safe spaces for the days ahead.
25.01.2026 21:40 — 👍 10 🔁 5 💬 0 📌 0
Re: In Re: United States of America No. 26-1135 Dear Chief Judge Colloton, I apologize for addressing this letter to you, but, for reasons I will describe, I do not have any other option. I am working from home today, as the program that my mentally disabled adult son attends each day is closed because of the extreme cold At 11:34 am, I received an email regarding Case No. 26-1135, entitled "In re: United States of America." The order in its entirety read: The motion of the United States to seal is granted. The Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota is invited to file a response, at his discretion, to the petition for writ of mandamus. Any response is due by 2:00 p.m. Friday, January 23. This is the first that I have heard of any petition for a writ of mandamus. The United States did not have the courtesy to tell me that they would be filing such a petition, nor did the United States serve the petition on me. I am unable to access any documents in Case No. 26-1135 because, at the request of the United States, the case is sealed-apparently even from me. So I have been given about two-and-one-half hours to respond to a mandamus petition that I have not read and cannot read. Apparently I am supposed to guess what the petition is about and guess what the mandamus petition says and then respond. I will do so.
The Honorable Steven M. Colloton January 23, 2026 Page 2 On the evening of Tuesday, January 20, the United States presented an application for eight arrest warrants to Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko in connection with the disruption of a religious service at Cities Church on Sunday, January 18. Judge Micko was the magistrate judge who was on duty at the time. Judge Micko found there was probable cause to issue warrants with respect to three of the suspects but not with respect to the other five. Minutes after Judge Micko signed three arrest warrants, the U.S. Attorney notified me that his office wanted a district judge to review Judge Micko's decision -either by hearing an appeal of that decision or by considering the application de novo. The first thing I did is ask our Clerk's Office to randomly assign a district judge to consider the government's request. I was the judge who was randomly assigned. It is important to emphasize that what the U.S. Attorney requested is unheard of in our district or, as best as I can tell, any other district in the Eighth Circuit. I have surveyed all of our judges — some of whom have been judges in our District for over 40 years —and no one can remember the government asking a district judge to review a magistrate judge's denial of an arrest warrant. I have also surveyed the chief judges of all of the districts in the Eighth Circuit. I have heard back from almost all of them, and all of those responding have said that, to their knowledge, no district judge has ever reviewed the decision of a magistrate judge to deny an arrest warrant. The reason why this never happens is likely that, if the government does not like the magistrate judge's decision, it can either improve the affidavit and present it again to the same magistrate judge or it can present its case to a grand jury and seek an indictment. On Wednesday, January 21, I informed the U.S. Attorney that because he was asking me to do something that was unprecedented, and because m…
A magistrate judge found no probable cause to support arrest warrants for 5 people involved in the St. Paul church protest.
DOJ appealed to the 8th Cir.
That appeal led to this remarkable letter from the Chief Judge of the Minnesota district court…
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Jeff Lewis Interviewed by Bloomberg Legal about Search and Seizure of Washington Post Reporter's Computer.
Watch here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3Z6...
#LegalAnalysis #PressFreedom #ConstitutionalLaw #DigitalSearchAndSeizure #JeffLewisLawAPC
23.12.2025 11:30 —
👍 12080
🔁 4367
💬 465
📌 274
All of these bootlegged copies of the 60 Minutes segment flooding my feed (saying, ‘Watch it quick! Before it disappears!’) makes me feel like I’m in the Soviet Union and just got some black market foreign newspaper I need to hide under a floorboard in my house.
This is where America is now
Jeff Lewis appears on The Hill to Discuss NY Times Lawsuit over Pentagon Reporting Restrictions
Avoid court if you can, Win if you can’t. www.jefflewislaw.com/
#JeffLewisLawAPC #AntiSLAPP #PentagonReportingRestrictions
I'm guessing SCOTUS did not agree to accept to hear the case for the purpose of upholding birthright citizenship.
05.12.2025 19:26 — 👍 3 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0The Shadow Docket strikes again!
05.12.2025 19:24 — 👍 3 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Q: Why did the lawyer love math?
A: He enjoyed calculating damages.
#ProfessionalHumor #OfficeLaughs #JokeOfTheDay #LawyerHumor #LegalJokes
Walter White’s blue meth.
27.11.2025 18:06 — 👍 2 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0Walter White’s blue meth.
27.11.2025 18:06 — 👍 2 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0
#pleribus #Pler1bus
What did Carol see under the sheet? Wrong answers only.
Today we filed 1st Amendment lawsuit against AG Pam Bondi & Dept of Justice for illegal firing of senior official w/o any due process for personal comments of public interest he made on private date that turned out to be targeted O'Keefe operation.
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
BREAKING: Comey case dismissed without prejudice. Halligan invalidly appointed, judge rules. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
24.11.2025 17:36 — 👍 15857 🔁 3656 💬 589 📌 538
Q: Why was the lawyer so good at basketball?
A: He knew how to handle the court.
#ProfessionalHumor #OfficeLaughs #JokeOfTheDay #LawyerHumor #LegalJokes
I have been binge listening to the podcast The Last Invention and now feel kinship with Adama from Battlestar Galactica as well as Chuck McGill. The podcast reviews the past and future of AI and it is eye opening. Highly recommend it. Then unplug.
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
