This is a special additional edition of the MATINAL MEMO of TPM. Register For the e-mail version.
One Friday afternoon of summer seemed to be a good time to retreat readers’ questions, but while I sat to start writing, these reports began to come from an exchange of prisoners to three countries involving the detainees that the Trump administration referred to Cecot. Under the reported arrangement, most of them or all of the Venezuelans deported to Cecot will be transferred to Venezuela, and the Venezuelan government will render American political prisoners. The pace of news in the Trump era never slows down.
But for the moment, let’s move on to your questions:
Question: What is the history of deportations to other countries than the country of origin? What about prisons in other countries led by us or managed by the other country?
I was in court last week over three different days covering the Kilmar Abrego Garcia affair, and I learned a little more about third -party moves than I knew before. American law provides for the moves of third countries, but the key point is that so far, they have been relatively rare. The number which came out before the court last week and which I saw confirmed elsewhere is that around 1.6% of the deportations have historically gone to third countries. This is obviously a small proportion, but it is not nothing either.
Where things become more nuanced are the circumstances in which third countries have been used. I understand it that before the second Trump administration, deportations to third countries where the deportees had No connection of any kind were much rarer. In your second question, the expulsion of people to prisons in third countries (or in countries that are war areas) was unknown until this year.
Another big problem here is what regular procedural deportees are entitled before being returned to a third country. The decision of the Supreme Court last month to suspend an injunction of the Federal Massachusetts judge blocking the moves of the third country without notice and the hearing paved the way for moves to deaths in South Sudan. But that also blurred the waters considerably on the required regular procedure. We have learned this week that a new policy of immigration and customs application (ICE) would allow the referral to certain third countries with as little as six hours and no other regular procedure. We will probably get a clearer response when and if the Massachusetts affair returns to the high court on the bottom, but that does not seem good.
For those looking for more context, the New Yorker spoke to the law professor of Yale Cristina Rodríguez this week of these questions.
Question: Procedural options for Senate’s DEMS to grind the appointment of Bove to a term?
Not really. Because the rules of the Senate are so Byzantine, I have the impression that I should add a warning that the Democrats could In theory, I can add a few hours to the process, but I do not know anything in the rules that would allow Democrats to stop the process of Bove confirmation on its traces.
Question: Why did a senator not put a grip on the appointment of Bove? Do holders no longer exist?
I suspect that you remember the old time, before the end of the obstruction for judicial appointments. Titles still exist, and they can slow down the process for judicial candidates, but they cannot stop them squarely.
If you detect me on the cover in my answers, it is because the parliamentary details are complicated and that I do not want to be imprecise. But I also don’t want to leave the impression that there is a cunning or an intelligent maneuver that is available to stop this. The battles on the rules of the Senate and the nuclear option were carried out about a decade ago. We are in a new era.
Question: Why has no one disappeared after Bondi et al. Thanks to complaints with bars associations for violation of legal ethics and bar codes?
I know that there was a complaint at the bar against the American lawyer at the time, Ed Martin at DC, who was refused earlier this year, and I see that two members of the Democrat Chamber this week sent a letter requesting an investigation into the DC bar on Martin. Beyond that, I am not sure I necessarily know about each complaint of the undergoing bar against lawyers of the Trump administration.
As for Bondi, some of the most blatant and most corrupted things that Bondi has made – as eroding the independence of the Ministry of Justice in relation to the White House – are not strictly illegal or lively violations of legal ethics. I only mention to note how limited the complaints of a toolbar are.
The rules of ethics should be applied, as if they were against some of the lawyers accomplices in the big lie in 2020. But I think we have also experienced real limits which made them less than a magical solution; Namely, they are slow. This does not mean that they should be ignored! I would not pin them my hopes.
Question: Is there more whispers at DC about Stephen Miller who directs the show at the White House? Does the congress shot the pearls or will it do something?
According to all accounts, Stephen Miller is an exceptionally influential and powerful white house assistant who has managed to channel Donald Trump’s ID in key political fields such as mass expulsion. I believe that the morning memo was among the first to note that the Trump decree on the Armament of the Doj made Miller the person of the White House. Miller also embodies Trump’s vindictive trends and seems to savor serve in a role of belonging. As for the congress, as long as the two chambers are in the hands of the GOP, I do not see him target Miller for investigation.
Question: I have two adult children with severe intellectual disabilities in a group home. An idea of how BB MEDICAIDS BBB cuts will affect them?
I’m sorry you have to deal with this kind of questions. I was initially inclined not to try to answer this question because the problem is so important for you and for families like yours that it deserves an expert’s response. But I wanted other readers to see it, and what I can offer could help orient them.
My feeling is that the fight here now moves to the United States, where the massive reduction in federal funding for Medicaid blows holes in their budgets. Each state will have to determine the quantity of these holes that they can fill in its own funding, then make difficult decisions about the advantages they prioritize. It makes you almost impossible to answer your question with specificity now.
The beneficiaries of Medicaid in the Blue States will probably be, on the whole, the prices better than those of the red states. But I don’t think there is a doubt that advantages will be reduced to all levels, even in the blue states. The financing cuts are simply too large. But how it seems that the state of the state will probably vary considerably.
Question: My question is whether the Democrats who took control of the congress in 2026 are really the best hope. Yes, they could block things, but they couldn’t repeal things or do new things because of the right of veto. At this rate, most of the damage will have been caused before sitting.
I would return the question and ask what is the alternative? Didn’t he dispute the middle of 2026? Does he abandon all hope? I agree that there is no magic ball. Democrats who win the Chamber will not solve all the problems or put each Trump transgression or will not instantly restore the rule of law. I subscribe to a “everything above” approach. You do everything you can wherever you can to preserve democratic institutions and the capacity of civil society, then do the long, hard and often slow work to rebuild what has been lost. Winning the elections is not the only thing, but it is an essential thing.
Do you like the morning memo? Let us know!
