Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Follow
UPDATE: Boasberg gives the government a day to decide whether it *actually* wants to invoke state secrets privilege, instead of just saying they might (while noting they never mentioned it before), rejecting their other claims.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.38.0.pdf
Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB
Document 38 Filed 03/19/25 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
J.G.G., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-766 (JEB)
ORDER
Mere hours before their filing deadline and characterizing the Court's proceedings as "a
picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding," Defendants seek to stay
the Court's Order requiring them to produce in camera particular information. See ECF No. 37
(Mot.) at 1. Although their grounds for such request at first blush are not persuasive, the Court will extend the deadline for one more day.
To begin, the Court seeks this information, not as a "micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition[]," id. at 2, but to determine if the Government deliberately flouted its
Orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be.
ALT
The Court, accordingly, ORDERS that:
1. Defendants' [37] Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and
2. Defendants shall have until March 20, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. to provide the information discussed in the Minute Order of March 18, 2025, or to invoke the state-secrets doctrine and explain the basis for such invocation.
Is/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
ALT
March 19, 2025 at 11:57 AM
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
·
4h
This is ridiculous.
This filing betrays a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution, and all of the lawyers on it know that.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.37.0.pdf
J.G.G., et al.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00766
Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official egacity as President of the United Siates, Defendants-Respondents.
MOTION TO STAY THE MARCH 18 MINUTE ORDER
What began as a dispute between litigants over the President's authority to protect the
national security and manage the foreign relations of the United States pursuant to both a longstanding Congressional authorization and the President's core constitutional authorities has devolved into a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding. In a series
of orders this Court has requested the Government to provide it details about the movements of
aircraft outside of the United States and interactions with foreign nations which have no bearing
on any legal issue at stake in the case. The underlying premise of these orders, including the most
recent one requiring the production of these facts ex parte today at noon, is that the Judicial Branch
is superior to the Executive Branch, particularly on non-legal matters involving foreign affairs and
national security. The Government disagrees. The two branches are coequal, and the Court's
continued intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch, especially on a non-legal and
factually irrelevant matter, should end.
ALT
The Court's pending questions relate to a comment by the Court to a Government attorney
suggesting, incorrectly, that the attorney had the ability to divert aircraft operating at the
1
Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Document 37
Filed 03/19/25
Page 2 of 7
President's direction on an extraterritorial mission to remove members of a designated foreign terrorist organization from the United States in connection with one or more sensitive diplomatic agreements requiring months of negotiation. The comment betrayed a complete misunderstanding of the serious national security, safety, regulatory, and logistical problems presented by a fiat from the Court directed at pilots operating outside the United States and was made without regard to
whether any such aircraft could feasibly be diverted or even had enough fuel to safely do so.
Further, the Court did not pause the hearing to give the attorney an opportunity to act on the remark,
nor did it memorialize the remark in the subsequent minute order.
ALT
Respectfully Submitted,
PAMELA J. BONDI
U.S. Attorney General
TODD BLANCHE
Deputy Attorney General
EMIL BOVE
Principal Associate Deputy
Attorney General
CHAD MIZELLE
Acting Associate Attorney General
ABHISHEK KAMBLI
Deputy Associate Attorney General
YAAKOV M. ROTH
Acting Assistant Attorney General
s/ Drew C. Ensign
DREW C. ENSIGN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Acting Director
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
BRIAN C. WARD
Acting Assistant Director
RISTINA P. GRED
nior Litigation Couns
PATRICK GLEN
Senior Litigation Counsel
ALT
March 19, 2025 at 10:08 AM
= new reply since forum marked as read
