Can somebody explain this to me? If they're committing to not removing him (and presumably the 200mi restriction) then what is the point of objecting to the TRO, if it doesn't change what they're going to do?
Replies
To preserve grounds for appeal
aug 27, 2025, 1:53 pm • 1 0 • view
Also because they want the option to break their promise whenever Miller gets cranky about it
aug 27, 2025, 1:54 pm • 1 0 • view
To appeal what? The TRO that they've committed to not doing regardless of it being in place? Or do they need to object to the TRO to appeal the larger case behind it as well?
aug 27, 2025, 2:00 pm • 0 0 • view
The commitment not to rendition Abrego Garcia is as worthless as any other commitment made by the current regime—good only as long as it feels like it
aug 27, 2025, 2:16 pm • 0 0 • view
It was a little weird. Judge Xinis wasn't quite sure what to make of it either.
aug 27, 2025, 2:02 pm • 4 0 • view
Okay, thanks! I wasn't sure if it was weird, or just involved some esoteric reasoning that didn't make sense to me, a Canadian who only got as far as the LSATs before pursuing other interests.
aug 27, 2025, 2:09 pm • 2 0 • view