The Supreme Court faulted the district judge in A.A.R.P. v. Trump for refusing to grant the Venezuelan alleged Tren de Aragua members’ injunction. But on remand, Judge Ho comes to the judge’s defense: after all, the judge only had 42 minutes’ notice. And to conclude that the judge had had some 14 hours, Judge Ho noted, the Supreme Court must have started counting at 12:30 a.m. Last time we checked, Congress has not provisioned courts a budget to operate 24 hours. “This is a district court,” Judge Ho reminds, “not a Denny’s.”

• The Supreme Court doesn’t have appellate jurisdiction without an actual order on the injunction motion. Tim agrees with Judge Ho that the Supreme Court played a little roughshod with the otherwise fussy jurisdictional rules.
• But the Court is losing patience with the Trump Administration’s legal tactics, Jeff suspects, which is why the Court is willing to stretch past the limits on its power.

What do you think? Is the Court’s move defensible exercising power arguably beyond its jurisdiction? Does it hold faith with Marbury, which famously established judicial power by not exercising it?

We also discuss the one-sentence letdown in the high-stakes religious charter school case, Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. And we share CALP alum Chris Schandevel’s appellate lessons from a hard-fought loss: how to serve your client when the Court doesn’t serve you the decision you fought for.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.