Kankuro
LightNews LightNews
kankuro.bsky.social
Kankuro
@kankuro.bsky.social
35 followers 25 following 1 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Kankuro
snrub.bsky.social
That, and also the clear effort to wrap everything up in attorney-client communications.
November 26, 2025 at 2:09 AM
Reposted by Kankuro
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
This sure seems like a deliberate choice to dare Boasberg into trying to do something against Noem, which they expect would get slapped down.
juliedicaro.bsky.social Julie DiCaro @juliedicaro.bsky.social · Nov 26
"insofar as the Court has inquired into the identities of the decisionmaking officials for purposes of making a potential criminal referral, the actions were taken by DHS (through Secretary Noem) after being formally advised about compliance with this Court’s order" by both DHS and DOJ counsel.
Accordingly, the Government maintains that its actions did not violate the Court’s order—certainly not with the clarity required for criminal contempt—and no further proceedings are warranted or appropriate. Indeed, the mere fact that Judge Katsas agreed with Defendants’ interpretation of the TRO means that the order could not have been so “clear and decisive” that it left “no doubt about what it require[d] to be done,” as criminal contempt requires. United States v. Joyce, 498 F.2d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 1974); see also Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (“long-standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt”); United States ex rel. Yelverton v. Fed. Ins. Co., 831 F.3d 585, 587 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (same). 10. Nevertheless, insofar as the Court has inquired into the identities of the decisionmaking officials for purposes of making a potential criminal referral, the actions were taken by DHS (through Secretary Noem) after being formally advised about compliance with this Court’s order both by DOJ leadership and the Acting General Counsel of DHS.
November 26, 2025 at 1:57 AM