Aloha Friday

October 3, 2025 — Aloha Friday

Oct 3, 2025

Court News Aloha Friday Morning Report Oct 3 YT

TPS Alliance v. Noem 25-cv-05687 · 3:25-cv-05687

Quick update in the TPS case: the court just expanded who's in. Citizens of Nepal, Nicaragua, and Honduras are now certified class members and will be included under the existing preliminary injunction. The timing matters — Nicaraguans just lost their protections under a separate parole program a couple of weeks ago. This case becomes the backstop.

The National TPS Alliance case challenges whether Temporary Protected Status — a 6–18 month safe harbor for people from countries experiencing major crises (natural disasters, coups) — can be revoked or altered after it's been granted. The substantive question is unchanged from prior coverage. The update here: the judge certified citizens of Nepal, Nicaragua, and Honduras as additional class members. They'll be included in the preliminary injunction already protecting the existing class. Bryan flagged the Nicaraguan angle specifically: they had been protected under a parole program until recently, and that protection was revoked. TPS Alliance class membership gives them an alternative legal protection while the underlying merits are litigated. No substantive ruling in this update — it's a class certification expansion.

ImmigrationTPSclass certification

Constitutional question: Same as the September 19 entry — the Ninth Circuit's holding that TPS protections, once granted, are not revocable by executive action because Congress built stability guarantees into the statute. The class expansion has no constitutional dimension beyond extending that analysis to more individuals.

R.I. v. Trump 25-cv-00128 · 1:25-cv-00128

The DOJ filed its copy-paste shutdown stay request in a Rhode Island case — same as everywhere else. But Chief Judge McConnell didn't go for it. His order: "The court is required to continue its constitutional functions, and therefore the motion to stay is denied." Then he quoted the DOJ's own policy right back at them: if a court denies the stay and orders the case to continue, the government will comply. You said it yourselves. Keep working.

This episode continued the October 2, 2025 government shutdown coverage. The DOJ had filed nearly identical stay motions across all its civil cases, citing the funding lapse. Rhode Island Chief Judge John McConnell issued an unsigned order denying the DOJ's motion in at least one case in his district. The opinion: (1) the court is constitutionally required to keep functioning — a government funding dispute doesn't pause Article III; (2) the DOJ's own published contingency plans state that if a court denies a stay request and orders the case to proceed, the government will comply. Bryan's reading: this wasn't even a hard call — the DOJ's own policy documents say their lawyers are *allowed* to stop working under a shutdown, not *required* to. If a judge says no, they keep working. Judge McConnell said no. Bryan contrasted this with DC Chief Judge Boasberg's approach — a blanket district-wide stay of all civil cases — and noted Rhode Island hadn't yet issued a district-wide order; individual judges in that district with pending DOJ stay motions would likely notice what McConnell did. The pattern: whether DOJ civil attorneys work through a shutdown can depend entirely on the chief judge of each federal district.

Government shutdownjudicial authority to deny staysDOJ contingency plan

Constitutional question: Article III courts derive authority from the Constitution itself, not congressional appropriations. A judge's order directing the government to continue participating in litigation binds the executive branch regardless of the government's funding status — the executive cannot cite its own decision to create a funding lapse as a basis for noncompliance with court orders. McConnell's order makes explicit what Boasberg's TRO/PI exception implied: the courts will not allow the shutdown to become a tool for suspending the rule of law.

AAUP v. Rubio 25-cv-10685 · 6

Someone sent an anonymous handwritten note to Judge Bill Young's chambers. "Trump has pardons and tanks. What do you have?" The judge decided to answer. His answer is a 161-page opinion on First Amendment rights, viewpoint discrimination, and non-citizen deportation. He quotes Ronald Reagan — the president who appointed him to the bench 40 years ago. And then he says he's afraid Trump has taken Reagan's warning about freedom and drawn a darker lesson from it.

AAUP v. Rubio involves non-citizens targeted for deportation because of their views on events in the Middle East — pro-Palestinian protest activity. Judge Young, a Reagan appointee in the District of Massachusetts, opened the opinion by displaying the anonymous handwritten card sent to his chambers — "Trump has pardons and tanks. What do you have?" — and addressed the writer directly at the start and end of his 161-page opinion. The Reagan quote: "Freedom is a fragile thing, and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance, it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation." Judge Young's response: "I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values, so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected." On the First Amendment question: Bryan framed it through his "tiger and cage" metaphor — the Constitution is a cage around the government, and the cage doesn't care who's on the other side. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech — "it doesn't say anything about whose speech." The government argued the Red Scare precedent supported deporting non-citizens for political views. The judge distinguished it on two grounds: (1) Red Scare deportees were accused of advocating violence against the US — no such evidence here; (2) here the government's own documents and statements demonstrate an administration-wide policy to suppress speech through deportation, which is facially unconstitutional. The government argued this was unreviewable immigration policy. The court: if the policy is facially unconstitutional, the label "immigration policy" doesn't shield it. And even if the policy itself is cleverly worded, the *actions* — deporting people for their non-violent opinions — either violate the policy or violate the Constitution. One of those has to be true. The judge closed by addressing the anonymous card writer again: "Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, we the people of the United States, you and me, have our magnificent constitution... I hope you found this helpful. Thanks for writing. It shows you care. You should." Bryan: "I would stick around for this one."

First Amendmentviewpoint discriminationdeportation as suppression mechanism

Constitutional question: The First Amendment's text does not limit its protection to citizens, and the court applied it in full force to non-citizen speech. The more structurally important holding is the limits on using immigration enforcement as viewpoint control: the executive cannot transform its deportation power into a speech-suppression tool by targeting people for deportation based on their political views, even when those views are unpopular or embarrassing to the administration. The court also articulated the either/or dilemma that closes off the government's escape routes: either your official policy is facially unconstitutional, or your actions violate both the Constitution and your own policy. The judge's reference to jury trials and local courthouses at the end is a structural observation about where constitutional rights actually live — not in abstract doctrine, but in the daily operation of courts that ordinary people can access.

← October 2, 2025 — Morning Report October 6, 2025 — Morning Report →