| > And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in particular latch on to any fig leaf of legality to excuse the administration's out-of-court admissions of intent to break the law [1]: > If courts pay more attention to out-of-court presidential and Administration statements, that will be another example of how the “presumption of regularity”—”the courts’ baseline assumption that government officials act lawfully and in good faith,” as Alan Rozenshtein puts it—is in serious jeopardy. Justice Alito’s dissent to the A.A.R.P. order, in which Justice Thomas joined, shows that those two justices remain content to rely on the Government’s representation’s in court—and vexed that their colleagues apparently feel differently. > I'm not sure how much difference that bill's clause makes in practice. There are at least three massive problems aside from undermining the role of courts in enforcing their interpretations of the law. - The clause applies to both government-associated defendants and non-governmental defendants. [2] - Federal Rule 65(c) does not apply to final injunctions, but the wording of the clause might apply to final injunctions. [2] - The clause applies retroactively. [1] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-trump-20-era-the-c... [2] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-house-judiciary-commi... |