The Week Ahead May 25, 2025 Joyce Vance May 25 This week, we’ll continue to see lawyers in court, trying to prevent the president from taking on exceptional amounts of power that don’t belong to him under the Constitution. That’s the theme to the litigation against the administration across the board, regardless of subject matter: Trump’s relentless effort to accumulate power. It’s worth noting that the more power you have, the easier it is to grift. If you can’t be criminally prosecuted for anything you do, so long as it has a tinge of official action, then you can accept a $37 million plane from the Qataris the same week you hold a dinner for people who purchased $148 million dollars’ worth of your meme coin (it’s a measure of the man that attendee reported that the food “sucked”). Grift aside—and we’re sure to see more this week, because when don’t we?—a major focus this week will be the immigration/deportation cases. There are so many that it’s difficult to keep them straight. Tonight, we’ll do an overview of what we can expect this week, so you’ll have the background you’ll need for each case as it pops up. Keep in mind the Kilmar Abrego Garcia is still in custody in El Salvador. And, as my friend Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, an extraordinary Georgia litigator keeps reminding me, American citizen children were deported and sent to Honduras. The administration says their noncitizen mothers insisted on taking the children with them when they were deported, but it turns out that’s likely not the case. One of the children was being treated for a stage four cancer and was deported without any medication. You can safely bet there is a zero percent chance the mom would have agreed to that. There are still hundreds of men in CECOT in El Salvador, others languishing, perhaps still in a cramped airplane that was supposed to take them to South Sudan but is now in Djibouti. As a lawyer for one of those men put it, “my client has disappeared. I do not know where my client is." In other words, the one thing we know is that the Trump administration is pulling out all the stops to make good on the president’s campaign promises about mass deportations. But these are not the dangerous criminals he said he would get off American streets. Here are some of the developments we can expect for the week ahead: D.V.D. v. DHS Last week I wrote to you about this case in a post entitled Welcome to South Sudan. It's the case where the government is trying to remove eight men from the U.S. and send them to one of the most unstable regions in the world. Only one of the men is from South Sudan. The others hail from places like Laos and Vietnam. They have no connections there and assuredly don’t speak the language. This is the case where the plane is currently in Djibouti, and the men’s precise whereabouts are unknown. But Judge Brian Murphy has ordered that they receive a hearing to determine whether they have a reasonable fear of death or torture before they are separated from U.S. custody. Expect to hear more about this one early this week. The Mahmoud Khalil Case Khalil is the green card holder and recent Columbia grad whom ICE arrested after Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a determination that his role in pro-Palestinian protests merited deportation. Rubio says that Khalil’s presence and activities in the United States “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” This was the first of the cases involving students that grabbed the public’s attention. Khalil remains in custody in Louisiana. In the meantime, his wife has given birth to their first child, whom he was finally able to briefly hold while still in ICE detention this past week. A motion for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the government from deporting Khalil while litigation over his claims proceeds—among them, he has argued he is being retaliated against for exercise of his First Amendment rights—has been pending for almost a month now. It’s likely we will see some action in this case this week, especially since Judge Michael Farbiarz has already ruled that he has jurisdiction over the case and can proceed. M.A.P.S. This is a case in the Western District of Texas, following the Supreme Court’s decision that people the Trump administration is trying to deport using the Alien Enemies Act must file suit in the federal district where they are being held. ACLU lawyers have filed to certify a class covering every person in this situation in the Western District. There is a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for Thursday, and Judge David Briones issued a notice that he may convert it to a “trial on the merits” permanent injunction hearing. Here’s the body of the motion, where the Judge writes, “Based on the arguments raised in Petitioner’s Motion, this Court finds consolidation of the hearing on the motion and the trial on the merits is proper.” That would seem to bode poorly for the government. That’s consistent with the language the Judge used on May 13, when he entered a temporary restraining order using language leaving little doubt about where this is heading. Judge Briones set an expedited briefing schedule for the class certification motion, which is why this will be taken up this week. If you want to know more about class actions, they’re governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which requires the individuals who want to be the “named plaintiffs” representing a class of everyone who is similarly situated to establish that commons claims that can be resolved in the litigation exist among the putative class members. The issue of whether Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act in the way he is trying to, claiming the U.S. is under attack by a foreign gang, is inevitably heading towards the Supreme Court. This case is likely going to be in the mix. A.A.R.P. (Now renamed W.M.M. to avoid confusion with the group of the same name) This case is on remand to the Fifth Circuit from the Supreme Court, which held 7-2 (Alito and Thomas dissenting) that the government failed to provide the petitioners (what we call plaintiffs when a case is before the Supreme Court) with due process. The government gave the men it planned to deport roughly 24 hours’ notice before it intended to remove them. The Court ruled that wasn’t enough. It returned the case to the Fifth Circuit for a decision about what the government has to do to meet its constitutional obligations. I wrote to you about that decision here. The government’s brief to the Fifth Circuit is due on Friday. We’ll read it together when it’s filed. The Supreme Court ordered the Fifth Circuit to consider two separate issues: The preliminary injunction factors a plaintiff must establish in order to get a court to order a pause on the action it alleges the government is taking unconstitutionally, while the litigation works its way through the courts. This includes the likelihood of success on the merits, which means the validity of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. The Fifth Circuit is going to have the opportunity to do its worst to buck up the Trump administration on this issue before the case heads back to SCOTUS, and there is little doubt that the uber-conservative Circuit will do that. Judge James Ho, in what can only be characterized as an audition for Trump to put him on the Supreme Court, has made it clear that he is on the administration’s side. What notice the government must provide to meet the standard for due process before it can engage in removals. As for now, the government is enjoined from removing putative class members. The next major event in this case will be oral argument before the Fifth Circuit next month. That’s a lot for a Sunday night during a three-day weekend, but I’m hoping it has all of us prepared for the coming week. I hope today’s post demonstrates why Civil Discourse is worth supporting. Drawing on my 25 years at the Justice Department as a career prosecutor and former U.S. Attorney, I cut through the noise and offer clear, accessible analysis of the legal and political developments reshaping our democracy. I go directly to the source—pleadings, judicial opinions, and other primary materials—to bring you facts and context you can trust and help you think critically about where we are and where we’re headed. If you’re a paid subscriber, thank you. Your support makes this work possible. If you’re not yet, I hope you’ll consider upgrading. If you value independent, expert analysis grounded in real legal experience, you’re in the right place. We’re in this together, Joyce