Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Judge rules Trump unlawfully invoked Alien Enemies Act against alleged Tren de Aragua members

A federal judge in Texas found on Thursday that President Donald Trump did not meet the necessary criteria to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua members, dealing a blow to the administration as it attempts to remove criminal illegal immigrants from the country quickly.

Judge Fernando Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, said in an order that Trump could still deport Venezuelan migrants detained in southern Texas using other, more routine authorities. However, Rodriguez said the Alien Enemies Act, a powerful wartime law, was not an option.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-rules-trump-unlawfully-i
nvoked-alien-enemies-act-against-alleged-tren-de-aragua-members/ar-AA1E0hAE?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=463837fb6b794759893207d55d45f83f&ei=19

---

Oh no donnie. So much of what you were doing was based on that. Whatever will you do?

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Judge rules Trump unlawfully invoked Alien Enemies Act against alleged Tren de Aragua members

A federal judge in Texas found on Thursday that President Donald Trump did not meet the necessary criteria to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua members, dealing a blow to the administration as it attempts to remove criminal illegal immigrants from the country quickly.

Judge Fernando Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, said in an order that Trump could still deport Venezuelan migrants detained in southern Texas using other, more routine authorities. However, Rodriguez said the Alien Enemies Act, a powerful wartime law, was not an option.

---

Oh no donnie. So much of what you were doing was based on that. Whatever will you do?

T

---

Great. This time it was a Trump appointee who blocked it, which looks great for the winning team.

Now it goes up the chain and gets shot down on appeal just like every court case you've ever mentioned so far in this thread.

Meanwhile, keep screaming your head off about the violent gang member aliens we're kicking out of the country and watch your party become even less relevant than it is right now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

False.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

That's a stupid statement from a simple-minded person.

---

Quote:

---

The appeals court's 2-1 ruling Saturday emphasized the judiciary's deference to executive authority in matters concerning federal employment and contractual decisions.

The court noted that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the administration's personnel actions and funding decisions, particularly regarding grant agreements with non-federal entities like Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

This ruling Trump's March 14 executive order (EO), which aimed to dismantle USAGM operations.

---

Quote:

---

According to Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling hinges on a critical point: jurisdiction, which has sweeping implications. As Cleveland explains, many of the legal challenges being hurled at the Trump administration involve employment decisions—precisely the kind of disputes Congress has explicitly said federal district courts have no authority to adjudicate.

---

Quote:

---

the lower court also overstepped its bounds by trying to restore federal grants—something Congress assigned to the Court of Federal Claims, not the district courts. All told, the decision is a sharp rebuke to the legal overreach being used to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda.
The significance of this decision extends far beyond these specific cases—it establishes clear jurisdictional parameters that could affect dozens of pending lawsuits against Trump administration policies. While the administration won't prevail in every case, this ruling suggests courts may need to more carefully consider their jurisdictional authority before issuing sweeping injunctions against executive actions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

TRUMP WINS IN COURT

A DC Appeals court ruled that

Quote:

---

The appeals court's 2-1 ruling Saturday emphasized the judiciary's deference to executive authority in matters concerning federal employment and contractual decisions.

The court noted that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the administration's personnel actions and funding decisions, particularly regarding grant agreements with non-federal entities like Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

This ruling Trump's March 14 executive order (EO), which aimed to dismantle USAGM operations.

---

In other words, according to this Appeals court, district courts lack jurisdiction to rule on Presidential contract or personnel actions.

Specifically

Quote:

---

According to Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling hinges on a critical point: jurisdiction, which has sweeping implications. As Cleveland explains, many of the legal challenges being hurled at the Trump administration involve employment decisions—precisely the kind of disputes Congress has explicitly said federal district courts have no authority to adjudicate.

---

In addition

Quote:

---

the lower court also overstepped its bounds by trying to restore federal grants—something Congress assigned to the Court of Federal Claims, not the district courts. All told, the decision is a sharp rebuke to the legal overreach being used to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda.
The significance of this decision extends far beyond these specific cases—it establishes clear jurisdictional parameters that could affect dozens of pending lawsuits against Trump administration policies. While the administration won't prevail in every case, this ruling suggests courts may need to more carefully consider their jurisdictional authority before issuing sweeping injunctions against executive actions.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

TRUMP WINS IN COURT

A DC Appeals court ruled that

Quote:

---

The appeals court's 2-1 ruling Saturday emphasized the judiciary's deference to executive authority in matters concerning federal employment and contractual decisions.
The court noted that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the administration's personnel actions and funding decisions, particularly regarding grant agreements with non-federal entities like Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.
This ruling Trump's March 14 executive order (EO), which aimed to dismantle USAGM operations.

---

In other words, according to this Appeals court, district courts lack jurisdiction to rule on Presidential contract or personnel actions.

Specifically

Quote:

---

According to Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling hinges on a critical point: jurisdiction, which has sweeping implications. As Cleveland explains, many of the legal challenges being hurled at the Trump administration involve employment decisions—precisely the kind of disputes Congress has explicitly said federal district courts have no authority to adjudicate.

---

In addition

Quote:

---

the lower court also overstepped its bounds by trying to restore federal grants—something Congress assigned to the Court of Federal Claims, not the district courts. All told, the decision is a sharp rebuke to the legal overreach being used to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda.
The significance of this decision extends far beyond these specific cases—it establishes clear jurisdictional parameters that could affect dozens of pending lawsuits against Trump administration policies. While the administration won't prevail in every case, this ruling suggests courts may need to more carefully consider their jurisdictional authority before issuing sweeping injunctions against executive actions.

---

---

THGR:
Hey, so Trump got a stay. Good for him. No, the law states the executive office cannot dismantle programs created by, and funded by Congress. It will run its course. He will, or should lose.

---

Quote:

---

Supreme Court Lets Trump Admin Ban Trans Troops As Hegseth Says "We're Done With That Sh*t"
Tuesday, May 06, 2025 - 01:40 PM

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted a stay allowing the Trump administration to ban troops who identify as transgender while litigation plays out in a lower court.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted a stay allowing the Trump administration to ban troops who identify as transgender while litigation plays out in a lower court.

A majority of justices agreed to enter a stay of a preliminary injunction issued by a US district judge in March, pending the disposition of an appeal.

Opposing the stay, of course, were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The decision is a big loss for seven transgender men, led by lead plaintiff Emily Schilling, a Navy commander, who sued to block the Trump admin from busting her balls.

"Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender service members who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense," said Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign Foundation - two groups representing the plaintiffs, said in a joint statement, adding that the policy "has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice."

In a separate case, a judge in Washington, D.C., also blocked the policy nationwide, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put that ruling on hold temporarily while it heard arguments on whether to block it more permanently. The court has yet to rule.

The policy, announced in February, is much more comprehensive ban than a similar proposal implemented during the first Trump term. It "generally disqualifies from military service individuals who have gender dysphoria or have undergone medical interventions for gender dysphoria," Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers. -NBC News

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a fiery speech on Tuesday that the US military will return to a warrior ethos.

"We are leaving wokeness and weakness behind. No more pronouns, no more climate change obsession, no more emergency vaccine mandates. No more dudes in dresses. We’re done with that shit," he said, adding "We’re focused on lethality, meritocracy, accountability, standards and readiness."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Look at Ted, funding the resistance of his dead party after all the years of accusing people who didn't give any money to Trump of giving money to Trump.



Stupid fool

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

No transgenders in the military. Period.

That is an obvious mental disease on full display and is not necessary nor is it helpful to anyone in the armed forces.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

No transgenders in the military. Period.

That is an obvious mental disease on full display and is not necessary nor is it helpful to anyone in the armed forces.

---

---

Talking about mental health disorders Gilligan, look in the mirror.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I would advise you to extract yourself from your Doomsday Cult at this point, Ted.

You don't need to go down with their sinking ship too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I would advise you to extract yourself from your Doomsday Cult at this point, Ted.

You don't need to go down with their sinking ship too.

---

---

Again and again and again Trump loses. Just another non-fact aye Gilligan.

T

BREAKING: DOJ Won't Appeal Block on Trump's Anti-Voting Order

Quote:

---

The Department of Justice (DOJ) does not plan to appeal a judge’s order blocking President Donald Trump from adding a proof of citizenship requirement on a federal registration form, according to a court filing made Monday by plaintiffs in the case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I'm sure he does.

Good job boys. Keep on fast-tracking these cases right up to the Supreme Court so we can make sure that Democrats can't ever rig elections again.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yeah Ted?

What has your party done today. Or this year even?

Can you name one thing?



--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

There is absolutely nothing in either of those clickbait videos that negates anything I've told you in here.

Trump wins all of these in the end.

In the meantime, lets see how many more of your Democrat Activist judges can get themselves arrested.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

OK, we are going to need this thread just to cover all the different losses for Trump in the courts.

---

Oh Shit Gilligan, say it ain't so...

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Keep posting your little heart out, Ted. I don't even bother reading the clickbait titles of whatever clickbait poison you fill your head up with everyday anymore.

Whatever you just watched today either already isn't true, or won't be true 2 weeks from now.

We have over a decade of your post history to prove that to always end up being the case.

*yawn*

---