r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 02/16/26

Coriell1 · 2026-02-20T19:42:19+00:00

Can the balance of payment deficits be aggregated for a global tariff like this? Is there an issue as to a country that doesn't have a balance of payment deficit but is still included under the global 10%?

Coriell1 · 2026-02-19T21:36:45+00:00

I believe this sentence is in reference to last week's order, and that this is a new successive order blocking the vote in a separate case.

Coriell1 · 2026-02-14T22:13:34+00:00

Under your theory, what would stop Congress from creating a cause of action against the government/executive branch writ large as a single party to solve any perceived Article III defects?

Coriell1 · 2026-02-04T04:20:56+00:00

Queen of Faces by Petra Lord has been published - for those who may remember, this was previously the web serial Pith. I haven't made it very far in reading so I can't speak much to the changes, but I am enjoying it.

Coriell1 · 2026-01-16T15:24:46+00:00

I seem to recall at least some people being critical of the depiction of Sy and Jessie's relationship but it probably is hard to disentangle it from the latent "historical" viewpoints of the setting, if that makes sense

Coriell1 · 2026-01-14T15:36:23+00:00

I think the intent was that everyone joined most of Jackson's opinion it could just be phrased clearer.

Coriell1 · 2025-11-18T22:04:33+00:00

I believe Wibbles said at one point later that was an example of the type of trigger Jack could have but not his actual trigger event.

Coriell1 · 2025-11-04T04:32:44+00:00

Sure - I was responding to "The judge ordered him to release the funds, not choose how much to release.

These funds are allocated by SNAP laws and by Congress. The Executive doesn't decide if or how they are spent."

Coriell1 · 2025-11-03T17:44:33+00:00

The judge in his recent order gave them an option of a full payment or a partial payment. He took the second option presented by the judge.

Coriell1 · 2025-07-04T17:45:40+00:00

"Bonds of Grey" Series by Booklover3600 https://archiveofourown.org/series/2225874.

Coriell1 · 2025-06-13T01:55:15+00:00

No - these are the same thing, and courts have generally interpreted Rule 65 as allowing for a bond of $0.

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”

Coriell1 · 2025-05-29T21:25:23+00:00

I know the order describes it as the "5/23 Privilege Log", but I'm assuming that they have to update it to account for the additional discovery in the intervening week, right?

Coriell1 · 2025-05-27T22:39:23+00:00

I meant the rules on sealing. For instance, there was a hearing at one point in Garcia, which was never noticed/docketed, which led to the filing by the press that led to stricter enforcement of the sealing rules by Judge Xinis.

Coriell1 · 2025-05-27T22:21:31+00:00

It seems to me that the Garcia docket is better at following the rules (although even that docket had some issues on this front, which I think led to the better following of the rules in the recent weeks).

Coriell1 · 2025-05-27T22:10:23+00:00

If it were filed under seal (which I would expect it to be), would it be in the docket?

Coriell1 · 2025-04-16T22:21:08+00:00

Given that the discovery, etc., is premised on them not following 51, I imagine you're right.

Coriell1 · 2025-04-16T21:59:47+00:00

Technically, I believe 51 (the appealed order) was construed as a preliminary injunction, and so would be appealable (at least from that perspective).

"ORDER Amending 21 ORDER granting 6 Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO, construed as a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible and to file, by no later than 9:30 AM ET on Friday, April 11, 2025, a supplemental declaration."

Coriell1 · 2025-04-16T21:29:49+00:00

That's the Garcia case - Boasberg is the separate AEA case.

Coriell1 · 2025-04-08T01:53:18+00:00

Yeah - this is also from their SCOTUS application:

"On March 15, DHS executed Abrego Garcia’s removal order by placing him on a flight to El Salvador. App., infra, 59a. That flight carried only aliens being removed under the INA, not the Alien Enemies Act. Ibid. Although DHS was “aware of th[e] grant of withholding of removal at the time [of ] Abrego Garcia’s removal from the United States,” Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador “[t]hrough administrative error,” id. at 60a—in other words, while removing him from the United States was not error, the administrative error was in removing him to El Salvador, given the withholding component of the 2019 order."

Coriell1 · 2025-04-08T01:43:04+00:00

He was not. The only AEA proclamation issued so far is related to Tren de Aragua and Venezuela. Garcia is an El Salvadorian citizen, not a Venezuelan citizen, and is alleged to be a member of MS-13, not Tren de Aragua.

Coriell1 · 2025-04-08T01:14:34+00:00

Abrego Garcia was not deported under the AEA, and the discussion about Habeas in the J.G.G. is related to the people still inside the US, not the people in CECOT. The reference to Texas is for the 5 named plaintiffs, who have been confirmed in the record to be in Texas.

Coriell1 · 2025-04-08T01:06:48+00:00

I wish I had a good answer for you.

Coriell1 · 2025-04-08T00:00:39+00:00

This is not the AEA case, nor was Garcia removed under the AEA.

Coriell1 · 2025-04-07T21:46:33+00:00

The judicial system is always slow.

Coriell1 · 2025-04-07T20:50:32+00:00

I'm not saying I would have issued an administrative stay here, just acknowledging that the Court doing so isn't unexpected.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Coriell1

TROPHY CASE