P. Andrew Torrez

My favorite “nobody”:

Come for "how do we teach con law in an era of madness?" and stay for "what exactly IS stare decisis, and how badly has the Roberts Court butchered it??"

with @espinsegall.bsky.social and of course @lizdye.bsky.social

Temporary Restraining Order Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [21] against Defendants. Having held hearings on October 6, 8, and 9, 2025, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden to support the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion and orders as follows: 1. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants,1 their officers, agents, assigns, and all persons acting in concert with them (hereafter referred to as “Federal Agents”), are temporarily ENJOINED in this judicial district from: a. Dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime. Defendants may order a Journalist to change location to avoid disrupting law enforcement,

Oh, lord that Ninth Circuit hearing was bad. Let's console ourselves with this nice TRO out of Chicago blocking ICE from gassing peaceful protesters and journalists

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Where Is DOJ Getting No-Billed Today? Hint: We will celebrate with a shot of Malört.

Let's play Where Is DOJ Getting No-Billed TODAY?

with @andrewtorrez.bsky.social

www.lawandchaospod.com/p/where-is-d...

8/ We'll know more tomorrow.

7/ So if you're reading the tea leaves, I think it's plausible to think that even this very conservative panel of the 9th Circuit might uphold Judge Immergut's findings.

That's because this admin stay suggests the court does NOT think it is irreparable harm for Trump to be unable to deploy the NG.

Finally, the President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guardsmen further support that his determination was not “conceived in good faith” or “in the face of the emergency and directly related to the quelling of the disorder or the prevention of its continuance.” Newsom II, 141 F.4th at 1051 (emphasis in original) (quoting Sterling, 287 U.S. at 399–400). Despite the “minimal activity” outside the Portland ICE facility in the days preceding September 27, 2025, Hughes Decl., Ex. 22, ECF 46-22 to Ex. 26, ECF 46-26, President Trump directed Secretary Hegseth “to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” Marshall Decl., Ex. 12, ECF 9-12. Two days before that directive, the President claimed that Portland has “professional agitators” who are “paid a lot of money by rich people,” “anarchists,” and “crazy people” who try to “burn down buildings, including federal buildings.” See Marshall Decl., ECF 9 ¶ 26. Whatever the factual basis the President may have for these allegations, nothing in the record suggests that anything of this sort was occurring “every night” outside the Portland ICE building or in the City of Portland in the days or weeks leading up to his September 27 directive. Id.

6/ Judge Immergut tore that argument a new one on Oct 4, ruling that *no* facts plausibly supported a determination that the President was unable to execute the laws in Portland & Trump's decision to federalize the NG was "not conceived in good faith."

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Whenever— (1)the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; (2)there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or (3)the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

5/ If that's the case, it's hard to imagine a case with fewer supporting facts than this one. 12406(3) says that the President must be "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."

4/ It looks like the panel wants to consider the merits of the federalization argument.

A previous panel of the 9th Circuit held that the President's determination that the preconditions of 10 USC 12406 were met was due "great deference," but the facts supporting that decision were reviewable.

3/ Trump did NOT appeal that TRO, so the 9th Circuit couldn't stay it.

An administrative stay is (typically) very short in duration; the 9th Circuit has scheduled oral argument for 9 am Pacific Time TOMORROW, after which the court will decide whether to stay Judge Immergut's injunction or not.

Ep 171 — Can Trump Put Troops In Every City Simply By Shouting EMERGENCY? Podcast Episode · Law and Chaos · 10/07/2025 · 1h 2m

2/ This does NOT permit Trump to deploy national guard units from Oregon or any other state on the streets of Portland.

That's because Judge Immergut issued a SECOND TRO on Sunday night enjoining the admin from sending Nat'l Guard units from any state to Oregon.

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e...

In the circumstances here, granting an administrative stay will best preserve the status quo. Prior to the October 4 temporary restraining order, Oregon National Guard members had been federalized but not deployed. The Memorandum authorized federalization of the Oregon National Guard members. An administrative stay of the October 4 temporary restraining order will maintain the federalization of Oregon National Guard members, because that order prohibits implementation of the Memorandum. Additionally, the second temporary restraining order has not been challenged or appealed, and it prohibits the deployment of National Guard members in Oregon. Thus, the effect of granting an administrative stay preserves the status quo in which National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed. Administrative Stay GRANTED.

BREAKING - 9TH CIR ADMINISTRATIVELY STAYS ORDER TO PROTECT TROOPS "FEDERALIZED BUT **NOT** DEPLOYED** TO PORTLAND

1/ A 9th Circuit panel with 2 Trump appointees (Bade, Nelson) just entered an administrative stay of Judge Immergut's FIRST TRO issued 10/4.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

I’m just a legal tutor

Standing in front of @lizdye.bsky.social and @andrewtorrez.bsky.social

Asking them to make a “Justin Baldoni teaches us civil procedure” supercut of Law and Chaos pods….

(Law students, it’s learning through snark!!)

Law and Chaos Government Podcast · Updated Weekly · Ignorance of the law is no excuse! That’s true for a traffic stop, and it’s true if you want to participate in whatever’s left of American democracy. If the event...

All the latest on Trump’s efforts to invade Portland & Chicago, the gov’t shutdown & our own lawsuit against the administration for lying to the courts about Judge James Boasberg!

With @lizdye.bsky.social

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...

Ro recap: In July, DOJ filed a misconduct complaint against Judge Boasberg. It was based on alleged comments he made at a judicial conference.

"Attachment A" was the only source cited as evidence of the comments.

But, per @lizdye.bsky.social, DOJ never even bothered to file the attachment...

This Judicial Complaint Could Have Been An Email But it would still be missing the attachment.

Remember that judicial complaint against Judge Boasberg with the mystery Attachment A?

Turns out it was never there!

with @andrewtorrez.bsky.social

www.lawandchaospod.com/p/this-judic...

OK, a little context is important here.

The Civil Division Federal Programs Branch is--or was--like the DOJ A-Team for civil litigation. The best of the best. They were the ones who stepped in and handled cases that had nationwide importance or threatened severe consequences for the federal govt.

Great Q, too complicated for bsky, will answer on Tuesdays show. Key point here is that FSS remains jointly & severally liable for the SH families debt, so the creditors can attach the assets no matter who owns the liabilities

I think it’s just the equity; i.e., the 100% membership interest in FSS, LLC, which is subject to a billion-plus dollars in liability and therefore not salable

U.S. Department of Justice FY 2026 Contingency Plan | United States Department of Justice

Yeah, there have been a few GFYS orders. Judge Young and Judge Cobb, off the top of my head.

@andrewtorrez.bsky.social pulled the memo — judges can order them to move forward, even in a shutdown

www.justice.gov/jmd/media/13...

What’s weird is that Baldoni’s seems to be winning the PR war, albeit filtered through tabloids and garbage right-wing media sources friendly to Bryan Freedman like Megyn Kelly. It’s truly bizarre.

indeed it does not

FNORD

Hey @lizdye.bsky.social @andrewtorrez.bsky.social I found Ellyn Garofalo's missing word

"BECOME A SHADOWY PATRON OF OPENNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY" donation link

5/ One plug: Kel is doing this pro bono. If you can support the work he's doing, please throw a couple of bucks towards someone who's been *relentless* doing the hard work in the trenches to hold this administration accountable in all the ways, big and small.

www.nationalsecuritylaw.org/donate

when a FOIA request is found to warrant expedited processing, the agency may not simply move it to the top of the queue and then proceed as though the request is no different from any other request. It must conduct searches in an expedited manner. It must review responsive records in an expedited manner. It must direct any agencies to which it refers requests to review the referred records in an expedited manner. And it must release records in an expedited manner. Accordingly, absent a court order, Law and Chaos’s request for expedited processing will remain a valid issue in controversy until either: (a) DOJ unilaterally grants its request for expedited processing; or (b) all processing of the responsive record is complete

4/ We deserve expedited processing. And we think the court is going to give it to us. Even this government has to comply with FOIA & that means actually searching the records and actually turning over what they find.

3/ So we filed a Freedom of Information Act request saying, "fine, dipshits, turn over Exhibit A."

And then the government put us on a slow boat to nowhere and said our request for ONE DOCUMENT currently sitting on Pam Bondi's desk merited the "complex" track.

Kel said BET & filed our lawsuit.

2/ The issue here is simple: Trump's goons filed an ethics complaint about Judge Boasberg & sent copies around to the press. But they've never released the evidence they say they have to SUPPORT it.

We think that's because their "evidence" is brain droppings from Margot Cleveland at the Federalist.

Law and Chaos has demonstrated that it has a compelling need to be granted expedited processing for its FOIA request. For the reasons described above, Law and Chaos is entitled to partial summary judgment on Count 1 and an order directing DOJ to process its request as soon as practicable. Due to the time sensitivity of this matter, as discussed herein, Law and Chaos further requests that the Court adjudicate this Motion itself expeditiously once briefing has been completed.

1/ Law & Chaos is suing the Trump Admin to force it to release the "Exhibit A" it claims shows that DC Judge James Boasberg besmirched Trump & violated the canons of judicial ethics.

Today, our lawyer @nationalsecuritylaw.org moved for summary judgment.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

MORE CASPINO DRAMA!

Flores is really interesting on the merits, too, if you've been following the issues regarding the NFL's chosen arbitrator, who certainly seems to be acting in a not unbiased way.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...