Just jumped into listening to the Tipton status hearing in the Texas case and the Texas AG just said something wildly incorrect, that all 14,000 people held in ICE detention would be released—but that's just completely wrong. It only applies to those with final orders!

Tipton, admitting his lack of knowledge on immigration law, asks a series of questions about detention that suggests he completely buys into Texas's argument that anyone with a criminal record is per se dangerous. But they served their time! If they were a citizen they'd be out.
Kirschner pushing back on Tipton and the AG's focus on detention, making clear that the case is about "removal," not detention. He asks Tipton to lay out his questions fully so they can answer them.
Texas's AG office completely botches Zadvydas, claiming that if removable is not foreseeable the government has no authority to detain them.

That is simply false (DHS can always continue to detain on public safety grounds), and @CodyWofsy jumps in to correct that issue.
Pushing back, @CodyWofsy makes clear that "as a practical matter, people who have final removal orders are often detained for years," including in circumstances where there are practical issues with their removal (diplomatic issues, e.g.) and Texas's claim was just wrong.
Now @CodyWofsy is explaining the very basics of the removal system's interaction with the criminal justice system to Judge Tipton, making clear that removal is not automatic on conviction, that there's a whole immigration court process.
Tipton now goes to the basic question at the top, asking whether or not people who don't have final orders of removal are covered by the memorandum (they are not!).

Kirschner for DOJ explains that the memo is ONLY about final orders.

Tipton thanks @CodyWofsy for background.
Tipton: "Are people who have been in prison, served their debt, are they covered by this pause.... or are they governed by some other statute about what happens to them on release?" He should read our IHP fact sheet.
https://t.co/IPBpqdl9eE
Tipton is clearly very open to learning more about the immigration system, and keeps asking for more information about how it actually works, which is good... but he already jumped in before getting the info, which is not good. @CodyWofsy doing a great job explaining basics.
Tipton says that he is going to extend the Temporary Restraining Order to "get it into a fashion for appellate review" and "I just want to make sure that the Fifth Circuit has the best record that it can, and that the parties have had the opportunity to provide fulsome briefing."
Tipton proposes a briefing schedule where Texas's briefing will be due on February 5th, DOJ's response due February 12, and a reply brief due Tuesday February 16th, and an argument on February 19. He asks for practical concerns from the parties first. Texas says they agree.
My fundamental issue with Tipton's solicitude to the schedules of the lawyers involved (he keeps apologizing for rushing them and empathizing with the work they have to do) is that the burden on lawyers doing more work is far less than the burden on people being deported.
Kirschner says that the Solicitor General will be making a determination as to whether to appeal Tipton's decision, but that he's going to be working along Tipton's schedule no matter what.

Tipton asks about appealability of TROs in general and conversion to a PI.
Kirschner says that they'll follow Tipton's schedule, but also that DOJ may try to appeal Tipton's decision anyway.

Tipton asks Texas to agree that DOJ's filing a brief on the extended TRO schedule isn't waiving their right to appeal the extension of the TRO. Texas agrees.
Now we're just on to practical question about word counts for briefs. But long story short, the TRO is going to be extended to February 23, and then Tipton will try to get a ruling in on converting it into a preliminary injunction or not. However, DOJ may appeal the extension.

More from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Sitting down to work for the first day of the Biden presidency is a surreal feeling.

So much happened yesterday. I'm going to collect my threads here on yesterday's big immigration news.

First, we got key details of Biden's big immigration


Once Biden had officially taken office, we got the first major action. As part of a standard transition process, the Biden White House froze all regulations which Trump had been trying to finalize at the last hour. I did a thread on what we


Last night we started getting more changes. One of the first was an order telling CBP to stop putting people into the so-called "Migrant Protection Protocols," a cruel program that's left thousands in a dangerous limbo. But there's still more to do!


After that, we began getting the text of immigration executive orders. The first one put onto the White House's website was the order ending the Muslim Ban/Africa Ban and ordering the State Department to come up with a plan for reconsidering


The next immigration executive order put on the White House's website revoked a Trump executive order from January 26, 2017 which made all undocumented immigrants a priority for deportation and directed a DHS-wide review of immigration

More from Society

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
Hi @officestudents @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equality and Diversity section of your job application has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

However...

1/15


However, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.

2/15


You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female.

3/15


Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

4/15


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

5/15

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party