FWIW, the admin is definitely relying not only on FTO status but also on SDGT status under IEEPA -- which, as you know, is the law the admin is *also* using for worldwide tariffs.

Cartel de los Soles, one of the groups reportedly targeted, is an SDGT but not an FTO.

Caginess about which group makes me think Cartel de los Soles, which isn't a designated FTO but is a SDGT... under IEEPA. IEEPA for tariffs, IEEPA for war, IEEPA the everything-statute.

Truancy and related youth crime are real issues in DC, and I'm not sure anyone has a great answer to them. Whatever the answer is, though, it's not this.

A fuller argument regarding the ability of courts to check "manifestly unauthorized exercises of power" is available in the @brennancenter.org's amicus brief with @cato.org, @ilyasomin.bsky.social, and law professor John Dehn. /fin
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/cou...

Today's courts should simply follow these well-reasoned cases -- Sterling, Milligan, Schueller, etc. – which allow them to protect rights in the face of unsubstantiated executive claims of military or wartime necessity. /8

In Ex parte Milligan, notwithstanding the government's argument that Indiana was "threatened with invasion," the Court relied on its own "judicial knowledge that, in Indiana, the Federal authority was always unopposed, and its courts always open." /7

In addition to following the logic of Sterling, Schueller cites Ex parte Milligan, a Civil War case in which the Supreme Court rejected the use of military commissions in Indiana. /6
supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...

In Schueller, the court rejected the application of Executive Order 9066 in Pennsylvania because "normal civilian life of the area was being pursued . . . and it could not be honestly said that ordinary law did not adequately secure public safety." /5
www.archives.gov/milestone-do...

In World War II, this rule prevented the federal military order -- Executive Order 9066 -- that resulted in the incarceration of 100,000+ West Coast Japanese Americans from being extended to German Americans on the East Coast.

Consider Schueller v. Drum. /4
law.justia.com/cases/federa...

The Court recognized that governors, as commanders in chief of their states, are vested with discretion to determine whether an emergency has arisen... but it also said their decision-making had to fall within "a permitted range of honest judgment." /3

The strongest cases for this are Sterling v. Constantin (1932) and its progeny.

In Sterling, the Supreme Court countermanded a governor's imposition of martial law because the courts found "there never any actual riot, tumult, or insurrection." /2
supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...