None were regular WD TX judges:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Brown\_(judge) SD TX Trump 45 and a Rick Perry appointee to TX Supreme Court
Jerry Edwin Smith - Wikipedia 5th circuit Reagan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C.\_Guaderrama Senior status WD TX Obama
This is infuriating⌠Hispanic is not a race, lacking literacy does not make you a member of a âprotectedâ class, another dubious category
Stay by Alito.
I would have been shocked if Alito did not stay the district court decision
Wait, does this mean Iâm not the Hispanic face of white supremacy?
This is the 7th Circuit stay in the Illinois case filed by alleged media:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72132615/state-of-minnesota-v-noem/
Too funny (and yes I know the real meaning):
- DHS consistently has a presence of vehicles and agents in the parking lot of a Karen-owned market in Saint Paul. Saint Paul has a large Karen population, and that population has reported that having DHS vehicles parked in that specific parking lot interferes with their ability to feel safe to purchase their culturally specific food which in turn harms the revenue of those local businesses.
Illinois sues, claiming itâs illegal to use the border patrol in the interior and numerous tactics:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72131845/state-of-illinois-v-department-of-homeland-security/
The district court entered a preliminary injunction with respect to federal
immigration-enforcement operations in Minnesota. The injunction is unlikely to
survive the governmentâs interlocutory appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), so we
stay it pending a final decision in this case.
This is another Minnesota case where MN is the plaintiff. Federal judge denies PI against ICE. Order shows utter lack of judicial temperament in pro-plaintiff bias. But she realizes ruling for the plaintiffs will get her slapped down badly in view of the 8th Circuit case noted immediately above.
In a sane world this would be enough for mandatory recusal for bias.
More lack of judicial temperament from a Clinton appointee:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72185757/conejo-arias-v-noem/
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-7536/24-7536-2026-02-20.html
Now to be clear, the Ninth Circuit is not the Circuit of Wackadoo. We donât reflexively grant preliminary relief in all cases. That would be crazy. We only do so in immigration cases.
It may not be the Circuit of Wackadoo but it has been a circus for decades. Itâs nice to see someone explain how the Ninth Circus works in practice. The inconsistent treatment of en banc vacatur across circuits is yet another small sign among many of dysfunction in the judicial system.
PER CURIAM ORDER [2169304] filed considering emergency motion for stay pending appeal [2169274-2]. Ordered that the district courtâs April 16, 2026 preliminary injunction be administratively stayed pending further order of the court. The consideration of the motion for stay be consolidated with consideration of the merits of this appeal. This appeal be expedited and the following briefing schedule is set: APPELLANT Brief due 05/08/2026. APPENDIX due 05/08/2026. APPELLEE Brief due on 05/27/2026. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 06/01/2026, scheduling oral argument on Friday, 06/05/2026. [See order for further detail]. Before Judges: Millett, Rao and Garcia. [26-5123] [Entered: 04/17/2026 11:05 PM]
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73204895/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-v-nps/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028010/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-in-the-united-states-v-national/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
âJusticeâ Jackson has complained about the supposed âshadow docketâ itâs supposed haste and its âirrationalityâ. Of course, she offers zero context for these many expedited appeals. The context is obvious: District court judges vastly overstepping their authority and making up âdecisionsâ out of whole cloth - affecting the entire nation and even foreign policy. Such judicial actions (way beyond mere âactivismâ) were, until recently, unimaginable. Of course the Supreme Court is obliged to stop it - immediately.
How about âInjusticeâ Jackson. Better yet, âIâm-too-stupid-to-know-what-a-woman-is Jacksonâ?
SCOTUS did not always have 9 Justices. That has only been the case since the Judiciary Act of 1869. Originally it had 6 Justices, then 7, Lincoln took it up to 10 to make sure rulings went his way. But it's been 9 since 1869.
â FischerKing (@FischerKing64) April 20, 2026
So when Carville talks about making Puerto Rico and⌠pic.twitter.com/X3ZVtDdCxC
Alligator Alcatraz: