JoDennehy

One of my most memorable grad school experiences was hearing Pat Schroeder describe fighting for this after discovering that even all the lab rats in pharmaceutical tests were male .

28 USC 1292(b) permits district courts to certify interlocutory appeals in scenarios other than injunctions provided that the court “state[s] in writing” that the conditions for invoking that exception are met. I don’t think Judge Sessions made the necessary statement here but I may have missed it.

I’m curious what others think but here are two possibilities: (1) the order to transfer custody to VT qualifies as injunctive relief or (2) Judge Sessions knows that DOJ is appealing everything at this point regardless of the rules so he is just letting them do that in an orderly fashion.

The order said: “Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the [SG] is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible.” I’m not sure why they put it that way but all that matters here is that SCOTUS said they can’t deport class members until SCOTUS says otherwise.

That’s what they asked Judge Boasberg to do during today’s hearing when he balked at getting involved. The application to SCOTUS contains no such request (on a quick skim).

I think that’s just a notice of service on the attorneys of record who have entered appearances. The actual notices don’t name Reuveni or DeShields Minnis as deponents.

Is there any chance they are stalling to give the SG’s office time to respond to the motion for leave to file a surreply, so as to prevent the administration from complaining about process in the event SCOTUS upholds the lower court ruling in some fashion?