Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 21h

So by staying the Saturday order, the status quo of ‘federalized but not deployed’ is preserved, and the Sunday order specifically forbids deploying them.

I think that the Court did a great job in threading that needle.

Continue reading: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/dont-freak...

2

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 21h

On Saturday, the status quo was that the Oregon National Guard had been federalized, but they had *NOT* been deployed.

What’s more, the Appeals Court points out, the Sunday TRO which, again, remember that they did *not* appeal, specifically *prohibits* the deployment of the Oregon National Guard.

1 2

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 21h

What the order *actually* says is that, in keeping with the intended nature of a *temporary* restraining order (a/k/a an emergency injunction), the intent of such an order is to preserve the status quo.

1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 21h

Anyways, the Court of Appeals *just* issued an order (Notes from the Front members, the actual order is included) in which they stayed the Saturday TRO (National Guard in Oregon), and it *DOES NOT MEAN* that he can now deploy the National Guard in Oregon!!

1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 21h

As expected, Trump appealed Judge Immergut’s Saturday TRO regarding his deploying the Oregon National Guard. Curiously, they *didn’t* appeal Sunday’s order barring Trump from sending the California National Guard to Oregon.

1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 21h

DON'T FREAK OUT WHEN YOU HEAR THAT THE COURT STAYED OREGON'S TRO - I HAVE THE ACTUAL ORDER AND IT'S FINE

Darn I just hate the way that the media spins these things - honestly, reporters and news outlets have *no business* reporting on legal manners if THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND THEM!

Ok, rant over.

1 2 7

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

How a National Guard presence threatens to undermine improvements in public safety and the communities’ relationship with the criminal justice system.

An explanation of the operation of the Cook County criminal justice system.

Continue reading: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/i-just-got...

1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

Among other points on which the brief elaborates, it includes and expands on the following points, each illustrative as well as educational:

A review of how state and local governments are granted sovereign authority to govern local affairs and ensure public safety.

1 1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

Also being a plaintiff would cost the County a lot more both in real dollars and in actual labor costs for time spent.

The brief itself is a fantastic review of the separation of powers between the federal government and the states - seriously, everyone should read it (it’s only 12 pages long).

1 1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

By filing their statements attached to an Amicus brief rather than Cook County joining as a plaintiff and putting them on the stand as a witness, they are (hopefully) more readily shielded from the administration’s wrath.

1 1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

A Deputy Bureau Chief in the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, an Assistant State’s Attorney for Cook County, and a Cook County Public Defender.

1 2

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

For example, along with their brief (included for Notes from the Front members) are three ‘exhibits’ (also included for Notes from the Front members) which are declarations (what some people think of as affidavits) from three individuals:

1 1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

Of course Cook County doesn’t just have information relevant to the lawsuit, but is directly affected by the outcome of the lawsuit. I believe they could have joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff, but I can think of strategic reasons for them to have gone this route.

1 1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

I JUST GOT THE BRIEF THAT COOK COUNTY FILED TODAY IN ILLINOIS V. TRUMP AND IT IS VERY REVEALING AND REPUDIATES EVERYTHING THAT TRUMP IS CLAIMING!

Cook County, in which Chicago lies, *just* filed an Amicus brief with the Court in Illinois v. Trump, and it’s a doozy.

1 3 8

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

As for what Mr. Miller said, those are just words, like so many other words said by people in this administration, they are intended to confuse and scare you, because a confused populace is a weak populace. Don't let them do that to you!

1 3

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

The Supreme Court said the president has immunity when performing his authorized duties, and presumed immunity (meaning it can be challenged) otherwise, and NO immunity for illegal acts.

1 1 3

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

And don't even bring up "But the Supreme Court said the president has absolute immunity" because no, the Supreme Court did not say that.

1 1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

People! Remember your civics lessons! Every single branch has a check and balance in the other two branches! In fact the ONLY branch that has any arguably plenary authority is Congress! Because Congress has the only authority to make laws.

1 1

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 1d

NO!! THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE PLENARY AUTHORITY!

Not under the Constitution, not under Title 10 of the U.S. code, not under anything!!

2 2 6

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 2d

... and in fact the Court is *encouraging* the plaintiffs to do so .

Continue reading: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/i-have-the...

1 5

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 2d

Meaning that instead of it being just about the TRO, the plaintiffs will be allowed to submit more evidence for the Court’s consideration if the administration does anything untoward between now and the Thursday hearing...

1 1 8

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 2d

... telling the plaintiffs that if the administration tries any - and I quote - “nonsense” between now and Thursday morning, the plaintiff should, and here again I quote, “feel free to supplement your filings and we can change the oral argument on Thursday into an evidentiary hearing.”

1 1 3

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 2d

This includes giving the administration a deadline of tomorrow night to get their responses in before the Thursday morning hearing and, much more unusually,...

1 4

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 2d

I believe that what she is doing is carefully laying a foundation and giving the administration enough rope to hang themselves during the upcoming hearing on Thursday.

1 1 5

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. @annepmitchell.bsky.social · 2d

In fact, throughout yesterday’s hearing Judge Perry teases out the things about which she has concerns, especially with respect to the things for which the administration’s lawyers *have no answers*.

1 1 4