This is the Nov. 21 edition of the Deadline: Legal Newsletter. Subscribe now to receive clear explanations of the many lawsuits related to the Trump administration, important Supreme Court rulings and other consequential legal issues.
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. The Supreme Court was quiet this week — at least as of Friday afternoon, when there is always a risk that big news will drop. With the justices in between their November and December hearing sessions, the main action came on Monday’s order list, noting that the court agreed to review the Trump administration’s appeal to restrict immigration asylum claims. We’re awaiting the court’s shadow docket ruling, which could come at any time, in the government’s bid to deploy the National Guard in Chicago.
While we await that ruling, another Chicago case is worth highlighting. In a staggering 233-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis singled out the testimony of chief Border Patrol agent Gregory Bovino as “not credible.” The Obama appointee wrote that Bovino — the face of Trump 2.0 enforcement — “appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing ‘cute’ responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions or outright lying.”
Let’s pause on that phrase: “outright lying.” Ellis recounted several dishonest instances from the lawman. “Most tellingly,” she found, he “lied multiple times about” events that prompted him to tear-gas protesters.
It wasn’t just Bovino. Ellis deemed the government’s conduct untrustworthy overall. She wrote that after reviewing the evidence, including body camera footage, officials’ “widespread misrepresentations call into question everything” they’ve claimed about what’s happening “in the streets of the Chicagoland area during law enforcement activities.”
That distrust supported Ellis’ decision to issue a preliminary injunction curbing the use of force and riot-control weapons. A three-judge panel, all Republican appointees, temporarily halted her order pending further litigation in the appeals court. The panel emphasized the temporary nature of the stay and cautioned to “not overread” it. The appellate order called Ellis’ injunction “overbroad” but didn’t question her assessment of Bovino’s veracity. The Supreme Court could be the next stop after the appeals court later this year.
Elsewhere on the SCOTUS/immigration front, the justices met on Friday for their private conference to consider pending petitions for review, including the administration’s quest to upend birthright citizenship. Lower courts have firmly rejected the move to thwart the long-held constitutional understanding of citizenship for people born on U.S. soil. Notably, the administration has taken a different approach to this issue, by avoiding rushing for a ruling on it, which it hasn’t been shy to do in several other areas this year. That more timid approach on the merits of birthright citizenship suggests a lack of confidence from the administration in how the high court would rule, especially in light of the Roberts Court’s broad empowering of the president. The court will likely take up the issue, though it’s unclear when it will do so or how, exactly, it will decide the matter that goes to the heart of what it means to be an American. One final note: The newsletter will be off next week to observe the Thanksgiving holiday. See you back here on Dec. 5. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them through this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
