Cambridge, MA freelance reporter, usually for @CambridgeDay. MIT; public recs; data; legal news Lately: immigration. jhawk@alum.mit.edu 617.797.0250
2,916 followers 416 following 5,099 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Like me, Plaintiffs didn't read Judge Sooknanan's order carefully, they say ("overlooked"). Plaintiffs now do not disagree with the Government's assessment that "all putative class members transported from ORR facilities have been deplaned and returned to ORR custody."
Ooops? At 5:19pm Sunday, Judge Sooknanan, in the midst of all this with the Government's status reports, ordered Plaintiffs to file a status report by 6:30pm Sunday. I missed that, and it appears the Plaintiffs might have, too, because they didn't. Sooknanan Monday at 12:07pm wants to know why:
But it says BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and ORR is part of HHS. Does this apply when §279 moves the removal from INS-now-ICE to HHS? It is not obvious to me.
I assume your current (11:25pm) thread is going to address if we know if a flight truly took off and then turned around in response to the court's 4:22am TRO?
Pronouns are tricky here. Today's case, L.G.M.L. v. Noem was filed at 1:02am TODAY, Aug. 31, and is (now) before Judge Sooknanan. That is not the same as J.G.G., the case before Judge Boasberg, that is the subject of contempt proceedings now stayed by the en banc DC Circuit. So: No. [fixed typo]
I mean…nap after issuing the TRO at 4:22am? Or after setting the 3pm hearing at 5:48am?
That's only true if reading bsky posts constitutes "notice of this court's order." The difference between…notice, actual notice, service, constructive notice, and… damn, I want one more cool kind of notice for my list.
It's maybe worth noting this is not the first time Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew C. Ensign's failure to enter a formal appearance in a case has drawn attention. In the D.V.D. litigation before Judge Murphy (D. Mass), plaintiffs objected to his arguing w/o appearing. No dodged orders, tho.
Well, apparently they claim to have not received notice of the order due to non-appearance. I wonder how things will change in the future.
Normally it's not worth commenting on notices of appearances, but…today it is. Drew Ensign files his appearance in the case at 6:20pm, so he will definitely receive notices going forward and can be presumed to have read the docket and prior orders by now.
Given that they (probably) turned around a plane in the air this morning, I don't think functional noncompliance is a real issue here. As for administrative noncompliance, a likely explanation remains that DOJ did not receive the first posthearing order (because no appearance was filed).
At least one judge is taking deadline compliance seriously.
1 hour later...no 4pm status report. Doesn't anyone with a filing account have that menu?
Also: Anyone on here with access to the Mailings menu in ecf.dcd (cgi-bin/MailNoticeRpt.pl)? Do we know if Drew Ensign is signed up to receive notice of the 4pm status report deadline that was just missed, given that he has not filed an appearance?
Can we stop to talk about how remarkable the timing was? Compliant at 1am, Judge engaged at 2am, ex parte call to the Government at 2:30am (they did not answer), TRO at 4am? On a Sunday of a holiday weekend?!
Ohhhh. It is Efren C. Olivares for plaintiffs. SS just said his name so much more clearly in her closing. (Hilda Bonilla who filed the papers was also there but she didn't speak other than initially).
Is it just me or is the a wide gap between SS: "Is it your REPRESENTATION that …" and DE: "Your Honor, my UNDERSTANDING is that…" ?
They emailed a 9-paragraph press release with document screenshots at 9:10am.
Actually, I believe there have been a few instances (err, one?) on the show of dogs wearing shirts, so either one is permissible.
Given that he's on DSTV now in a light blue buttondown, it sadly seems not.
Finally, Thursday afternoon, the severed SEVIS (ha, ha) claims in Öztürk's case make it to Massachusetts, 1:25-cv-12334, before Chief Judge Denise Casper. [ did they send it by carrier pigeon from Vermont? ]
In case anyone was wondering, sounds like #cambma's Valente Library is out of commission through September. It's been closed since June because of water damage from an air conditioning system failure. I hadn't realized it was such a big deal. www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/...
Somehow I missed this bsky post and am only seeing this now. [oops?] But…isn't the PI hearing on Monday? Is there more litigation I don't know about?
One day later, Öztürk's severed claims/case do/does not appear to have yet been transferred to Massachusetts.
August 18 update in Öztürk's case in a new thread: SEVIS record restoration aspects of the case transferred from Vermont to D. Mass: bsky.app/profile/john...
Oh, also: 27-page decision issued today at 2:10pm.
Err, forgot to tag this Öztürk update #ozturk. It occurs to me that the transfer case might get back the FRCP 5.2(c) immigration case restrictions and we'll have to figure out what access to the case in D.Mass looks like. Still, a trip to the Seaport is a lot less annoying than a trip to Vermont.
Background thread from May: bsky.app/profile/john...
PARTIAL SETBACK for RÜMEYSA ÖZTÜRK, the Tufts grad student taken by ICE in March: Judge Sessions transfers her request to restore her SEVIS record (for US work authorizatino) to D. Massachusetts, but denies the Gov's motion to dismiss Opinion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
I sort of thought that her invitation to stay after the hearing for the new clerk swearing in (only 1, not 2, I thought) was an invitation for anyone to come get pizza. Maybe that's not so.
She also said pizza. Huzzah for pizza.
Oh, you get Eric Hamilton again.
I'm not a STA expert, but the absence of a grand jury indictment by the speedy trial clock means any felony criminal complaint gets dismissed and so he would no longer be under probation or bail restrictions and just be a regular unindicted human being. (Unless there was a misdemeanor complaint)
Yeah, I just think it's worth spelling out for people that there are real time limits ;)
Not just "eventually," but a grand jury indictment is required within 30 non-excludable days (but somehow a lot of days seem to get excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculation with a lot of frequency).
That seems a reasonable interpretation, but really I don't know. And it's unclear how instantly such things take effect. Both the DC BPR and the DC federal District Court show him as currently suspended right now, idk. But there's no chance that opposing counsel in the Florida action is unaware!
It looks like the 2024 was the DC BPR, which was then appealed, and the appeal opinion issued Aug. 7, 2025 (last week!). It seems that the suspension was tolled until then, as there was a pending stay motion. (This is also well outside the realm of what most would call "civpro.")
I dunno, but the suspension was in Sept. 2022 (was it tolled? delayed? did the reciprocal discipline run differently?) so it could easily be over by the time of the June 2025 deposition.
Oh, gosh I missed the BY MS. BOLGER Yikes. Anyhow, this seems like sanctionable deposition conduct, but I suppose that's the least of anyone's worries? I dunno. (not even sure why this depo was filed though, so…maybe. *starts to read p.1 — OH NO I CAN'T GO DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE.)
I mean, really burying the lede by not telling us this depo was conducted by LARRY KLAYMAN.
I think you misunderstand some of the issues here. For one, the formatting is f'd up and the original was clearly intended to be formatted in a monospaced font. But there is also a cultural expectation in the legal community of monospaced transcripts, tho that's much more subjective. But YDY!
I never thought I would say this, but "This is a family bluesky thread."
This honestly wasn't worth it and I don't know what is my life but this might be marginally better: drive.google.com/file/d/1PurG...
It feels like Word is on the verge of crashing and I'm not even sure this is any more readable…
Alright, let's see how hard this is…Courier, here we come…
I don't know what to say, Anna, I…do not think I can read this depo transcript in this font. Maybe I will take a ridiculous moment and fix it?
Pretty sure it's the same lead attorney for CA all trial long. She did introduce herself again this morning at the start… Unfortunately I've lost track but I think it's Jane Reilley.
CRB: "Oh, our IT Department's CRACK! CRACK!"
As I listen to M.G. Sherman's testimony, it strikes me that unless the military deliberately inserts "secret shopper" violators (aka "salts") of the Rules, command staff cannot have any real confidence that Rule violations would be reported, esp. where there's an incentive not to report violations.
Oh hey. If anyone missed any bits, apparently Breyer's staff is copying it to Youtube, where it is a live event that will presumably disappear this evening, but allows rewinding for now: www.youtube.com/@USDCCAND_CR...
Confirmed: "Ms. Lin"
Is there an exception the rule allowing leading questions on cross-examination when the witness is a party representative? Why is California objecting to leading cross examination? Just kidding, there is not. (But direct and cross are a little confused in this situation.)
Oh hey, somebody bought all of #127: www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496... pic is ECF 127-2 Ex. 6 (aka trial Exhibit 64)
I understand her to be Special Litigation Counsel Jean Lin from Federal Programs Branch.
Somebody else can pony up for the attachments to ECF No. 127 (-2 and -6) that seem to be most of these lately discussed: bsky.app/profile/john...
Despite his standing order, CRB seems to not have much trouble with "speaking objections." Indeed, the subsequent colloquy felt almost appellate in character.
Exhibit 79, storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... Exhibit 80, the video, was filed on a USB drive and isn't in CM/ECF.
(Someone else can buy this stuff for $3 if they want the realtime ;) ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/0350260... )
Ex. 64 is DVIDS Photo [2] ECF 127-2, Ex. 6
FINALLY we have some of these exhibits. Ex. 53 is these: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Sigh. Pursuant to the exhibit list storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... it looks like #10 and #28 have not been docketed; unlike, e.g., #57 and following that were. Amusingly the non-stipulated exhibit redactions were maybe docketed attached to ECF 150, 153, &c.
Are the redacted exhibits docketed or otherwise available from the parties?
I haven't been following this case at the filing level…relator? Does that mean this gets an "ex rel." caption? Those are always fun. qui tam quo warranto? If only there was a rap musician available. Perhaps a poet.
Switching over to the non-zoom livestream and counting the offset delay on my fingers, I think the gavel might have banged at 12:05:20am.
MM "On a motion by everybody to adjourn — I'm kidding! By the mayor!" Meeting adjourned, 12:05:15am, no gavel bang before the Zoom shuts down.
MM advocates for Rocky Horror. BA expresses disappointment in the MCNCD's vote on 86 Ellery Street tonight.
We've made it to Announcements.
More significantly, there's a "late" letter from JSW,PN,BA,SS inquiring about the 243 Broadway incident, and use of chemical agents (characterized more harshly in public comment). PN refers to Public Safety and the Manager. 9-0 cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Det...
Oh, sorry, the Late Resolution was for Christley Harris: cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Det...
Back to the late resolution, EDS "waive[s] the reading." and I have no idea what just passed 9-0, other than it was a ceremonial resolution.
Ha, ha, Another cheat-sheet failure, as to the Charles Teague Open Meeting Law complaint response. It said (LEFT) when it should have said (RIGHT):
"That completes the agenda, any announcements?" Paula Crane: Wait! wait! wait! There is a late resolution. MM: "The City Solicitor is running in, and that's usually NOT a good sign. Not that we're not pleased to see you."
Meanwhile, there's some confusion over the A&P#4's referral from the secret cheat-cheat that says "Refer to the Ordinance Committee" instead of "Refer to the Planning Boar and Ordinance Committee for Hearing and Report":
PFT moves to re-table the Apex energy union item, it passes 7-2: BA y MM n PN y SS y JSW y PFT y AW y CZ y EDS n MM moves to extend the midnight expiration to 12:30am, passes 8-1 (AW…Yes…or *NO*. Clerk: Is it Yes or No? AW Yes.), EDS against.
EDS thinks the amended version (text on the screen, seems long) "sanitizes" the policy order overmuch.
We've come round to Calendar #4, from the table, about the non-union labor by Apex Energy. There's some dispute as the Manager is concerned the order could be seen as violating the contract terms, although there is some dispute about that, because of speech of the executive vs. legislative.
EDS spends 5 minutes defending her PO as not being a crackdown, but she exercises her charter right and "I yield the floor." So much for #3, see you in September.
1 and 2 having passed, here we are on the St. James church/condominium conflict.
That's the City Manager's agenda. EDS: "Don't leave Mr. City Manager, we have other fun things."
And there we are. The Biomed / East Cambridge Community Enhancement Overlay district zoning is ordained 8-1 (PFT against). The Council then votes to finalize it.
Toner is opposed to the Biomed deal, because he feels like the project only garnered support because of East End House and they're not getting what was originally offered and agreed to.
Apparently Biomed agrees to pay some of is benefits faster than previously agreed-to:
Now up, the Biomed / Community Benefits morass.
The Marasao zoning petition is ordained 9-0.
At 8:40pm I got into a long conversation that distracted me from the meeting so the absence of posts in the past hour is not indicative. Sorry? They're now on the RLUIPA-focused zoning amendment permitting religious uses more expansively than before.
#5 EDS: "If members want to start gambling, we can start contributing to this fund in a more aggressive way."
We've made it on to #4, appointments to the Commercial Parking Control Committee, which includes a brief diversion of inquiries from CZ about membership in A Better Cambridge and Cambridge Bike Safety, with various degrees of pushback from MM and BZ about the appropriateness of that.
As to #1, the litigation update, PN is asking about the post- Trump v. CASA SCOTUS limits on injunctive relief to non-parties where the City of Cambridge is not a party to the case.
CZ proposed this amendment to the 7/21 minutes but EDS objected because it makes it sound like she was "blocked" from joining the meeting — but…that's exactly the point, as I understood it. Ah well, *sigh*.
public comment: "Our final speaker is Dennis Carlone."
Oh, I should have mentioned, there's a Manager's Supplemental on the Biomed/East Cambridge/CBAC agreement: cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Det...
Looks like the difficult, lasting issue of the night is going to be the "compromise" over the community benefits ordinance and the Biomed East Cambridge zoning petition. Also some weird stuff about conflicts w/ the St. James church and its neighbors over unhoused people sleeping on their porch(es).
No. And councillors are often pulled away into conversations with constituents and others at the beginning of (or during) the meeting. And sometimes members are traveling or otherwise absent, or remote, or unexplained.
PT is also present in City Hall.
Also, MM is here.
Sounds like we're now up to 61 speakers on the list, limited to 2 minutes each, and we lead off with support for the negotiated "Welcoming Communities" ordinance about limiting/bounding the interactions between ICE and the Cambridge Police.
Speaking of history, Mayor EDS uses her moment of silence to acknlowledge the lives of both Bill King (longtime chair of the Camb. Historical Commission) who died on July 22 (cambridgehistoricalcommission.wpcomstaging.com/2025/07/31/w...), as well as Tom Lehrer.
