Trunp loses again in Court
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 04:15
VIEWED: 52231
PAGE 56 of 100
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
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.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Jack, you better check things out. Trumps losing these appeals. Not winning them.
T
Trump-Appointed Judge Rules ALL Trump Deportations of Venezuelan Immigrants are UNLAWFUL!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
False.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
False.
Hey Jack, here is a hint. If Trump is appealing everything, then he is losing everything.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's a stupid statement from a simple-minded person.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's a stupid statement from a simple-minded person.
Judges have had enough of Trumps lawyers. Judge to Trump lawyer, "give me a break."
T
Trump’s Lawyers Keep Setting Themselves on FIRE
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
SpecificallyQuote:
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 additionQuote:
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.
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.
T
Trump MOCKED at Supreme Court with STANDING OVATION
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME