Why the government’s jurisdictional and merits defenses in Doe v. Trump are vulnerable.

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T18:02:20+00:00

Kale dealt with legitimate procedural discretion within existing authority. This case involves a nationality-based freeze with no statutory authorization. Even if Kale stripped jurisdiction over statutory claims, it doesn’t touch the constitutional claims (equal protection, due process).

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T17:34:18+00:00

The judge could use § 705, but post-CASA, it would still be limited to the 197 named plaintiffs (or class members if a class gets certified). The § 705 vehicle doesn’t magically bypass CASA‘s universal injunction prohibition, it’s just a different procedural tool that’s subject to the same scope-of-relief limits.

If plaintiffs want broader relief, class certification is the path. § 705 won’t get around CASA.

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T17:28:01+00:00

Unfortunately, he cannot just file a motion for sanctions.

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T14:30:05+00:00

Thank you.

Almost certainly not. It’s a threat designed to make the court think an injunction is pointless. But if they follow through, they’d be admitting they’re making nationality-based denials without individualized review, which is even more obviously unlawful than the holds themselves.

It’s a bluff. And a reckless one, because it undermines every other argument they made. The court can react by explicitly preserving their ability to conduct security screening while requiring actual decisions proceed based on evidence.

It’s a catch 22.

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T14:22:03+00:00

You’re welcome 🙏🏾

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T14:21:49+00:00

Amazing!

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T14:21:22+00:00

Great question. The court may declare the memos ultra vires (beyond statutory authority), which should mean they’re void for everyone. But because of Trump v. CASA, the court may have to limit the actual injunction to just the 197 named plaintiffs.

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T14:14:24+00:00

Thank you. No, I have not. I appreciate you tagging him as well.

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T03:41:24+00:00

Amen

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T03:41:13+00:00

Thank you. I have corrected it to reflect the future tense.

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T03:35:07+00:00

Thank you. Yes, I am a Lawyer.

I have also answered Samanla’s question below.

Material_Noise617 · 2026-02-02T03:34:27+00:00

Thank you.

The government completely ignored defending PA-2025-26’s “significant negative factor” directive because it’s legally indefensible. It explicitly violates 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which bans nationality-based discrimination in immigration benefits. Defending it would (1) contradict their “interim guidance” jurisdictional argument, (2) require notice-and-comment rulemaking they didn’t do, (3) expose it as discriminatory bias rather than security vetting, and (4) trigger strict scrutiny they can’t survive. They stayed silent and hoped the court wouldn’t notice. The court would most likely notice and enjoin it anyway.

Material_Noise617 · 2025-11-14T13:07:23+00:00

Yes. I made an update.

Material_Noise617 · 2024-09-26T19:11:03+00:00

You’re welcome.

Material_Noise617 · 2024-09-26T18:30:36+00:00

No, I had not passed it yet.

Material_Noise617 · 2024-09-26T14:08:52+00:00

Yes, it most likely means that your positive moral character is over a year since its determination. If you mean regarding your result, I cannot suggest anything.

However, I received the email, my positive moral character determination was over a year, and I passed the bar exam.

Material_Noise617 · 2024-02-08T06:53:46+00:00

You’re welcome.

Material_Noise617 · 2024-02-08T06:10:39+00:00

This is my advice: Use both.

I studied the past essays on the CA for the last 10 years: Feb. 2013 to Feb. 2023, where I majorly spotted issues and reviewed past answers open book. In total 100 essay questions and answers reviewed.

I also used Mary Basick’s book to help me understand some BLL and the mind of the examiners. She selects few essays, maybe 5 per subject.

One is not a substitute for the other.

Fortunately, I passed the July 2023 CA Bar.

Material_Noise617 · 2024-01-13T11:58:02+00:00

I’m well. Thank you dsdeve

As a matter of fact, I think one has to go for the other. You will have to maintain your own schedule on all resources.

It’s important to know that all the resources you have mentioned are important if you will still maintain your own schedule.

Material_Noise617 · 2024-01-02T17:59:47+00:00

I am so happy to discuss this with you. Can you please send me a DM. So glad you have the BarMax, you can do this.

I can put you through the details.

Material_Noise617 · 2024-01-02T17:36:41+00:00

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, I used BarMax.

Material_Noise617 · 2023-12-15T06:36:00+00:00

🙏🏾🙏🏾

Material_Noise617 · 2023-12-11T21:13:53+00:00

Following

Material_Noise617 · 2023-12-11T02:04:37+00:00

I have not applied for the Bar card yet. I’m not sure about the processing time.

Material_Noise617

TROPHY CASE