This may be right, assuming AUSA appeared on behalf of all defendants, including Trump personally. Did the stay have a timeframe to implement?

This is my new favorite Twitter account:

mainstream outlets are going to have to step up their game not only on things like this, but on all aspects of this administration. the days of sitting in studios and reading teleprompters all day just isn't going to cut it anymore.

Maybe beasts of no nation.

I honestly don't think there's any coordinated thought to any of this

Just reeks of impulsivity, recklessness, and general bad management that seems to be trumps trademark style.

I mean, it's gotten him this far, why would he stop now?

Well said and totally agree.

First time I've actually went to twitter to see if something was true. These people are unbelievable.

It may not be intentional by Trump but intentional by others that are playing him for a fool and that being the end result.

un****ing believable that it's real and has been up for 20 hours

Figured it had to be fake, but wow.

Gonna keep going down this rabbit hole a bit:

"Considering the frequent state of confusion surrounding this area of the law, this article will attempt to provide federal practitioners with a basis, but better understanding of existing federal contempt of court jurisprudence. This is no easy task considering the fact that “[t]he literature on contempt of court is unanimous on one point: the law is a mess.”2 Moreover, “[f]ew legal concepts have bedeviled courts, judges, lawyers, and legal commentators more than contempt of court.”3"

https://www.bafirm.com/publication/f...empt-of-court/

Reading that article, I didn't see a strict notice requirement for civil contempt. (The article is mainly concerned with criminal contempt.) And, as noted, if a party is represented, notice is likely presumed. In any event, there seems to be something of a "reasonable person" standard.

"In Matter of Pilsbury, the court also cautioned that “where a reasonable person would not know that the court considered his conduct contemptuous, warning is required before a summary [criminal] contempt conviction may be made, and some opportunity to be heard must be provided unless inconsistent with the preservation of order.”61 Moreover, use of the summary contempt power should only be exercised after considering the following words of the Supreme Court: “Summary punishment always, and rightfully, is regarded with disfavor and, if imposed in passion or pettiness, brings discredit to a court as certainly as the conduct it penalizes.”"

To the extent Dulles CBP didn't follow the order, they may have been [mis]interpreting it in a way that favored continued detention, such as presuming the detention area as not US soil. That's not the sort of thing one would want to argue before a judge that issued the order, but it may be something they try to hang their hat on.

Donate to the ACLU

They'll just say they were following orders, Trump made them do it.

So, is it just Dulles still defying the court ordered stay, or is there a complete list of airports still in defiance vs. which ones are complying with the court?

Man, I mean, I'm not at all surprised Trump tried this, but I'm very surprised he had so many people willing to defy a court order without having to clean house at CBP and install a bunch of lackeys.

I'm starting to worry that every LEO and Homeland Security office was filled with wannabe lackeys even before the election.

Hannah Arendt. She tried to tell us.

Yeah, there are certain branches of the executive that you could have guessed in advance pulled the lever for Trump extra hard.

Bootlickers unfortunately are drawn to certain occupations.

I think the question of contempt is likely an academic exercise. I'm not convinced by the sourcing of rumors that the Dulles CBP is not following the order, at least as they interpret it. Often when a party is accused of violating a court order there is a follow-up hearing to clarify the order and whether the alleged impermissible conduct is in compliance.

I recommend this to everyone

This has been confusing me too since yesterday. I've seen the twitter stuff about them ignoring the court order, but nothing reported in the mainstream media. That's front page news if true. So, why isn't it being reported?

Are there relevant criminal anti-lynching type laws here?

Literally every newspaper in the country tried to tell us.

I'm not opposed to admitting twoplustwo leading to deportation.