- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Appeals Court Rules BP Chief Greg Bovino Does Not Have to Check In Every Day W Fed Judge
Posted on 11/1/25 at 7:52 am
Posted on 11/1/25 at 7:52 am
more lawfare getting shot down - zero chance that SCOTUS takes this up; so that should be the end of this foolish order
Appeals Court Rules Border Patrol Chief Greg Bovino Does Not Have to Check In Every Day With Federal Judge
quote:
Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino, who led a series of raids across Chicago, Evanston and Skokie on Friday, does not have to report every weekday at 6 p.m. in person to the federal judge who has tried to rein in federal agents’ use of force.
The unsigned opinion from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the request from lawyers from the Trump administration to block U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis’ order that Bovino appear in her courtroom every weekday at 6 p.m. to recap the events of the day and inform her of any use of force.
Ellis’ order “infringes on the separation of powers,” the appeals court ruled.
Ellis’ order “puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator,” according to the ruling.
It also sets up the court “as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the executive branch.”
Appeals Court Rules Border Patrol Chief Greg Bovino Does Not Have to Check In Every Day With Federal Judge
11
Posted on 11/1/25 at 7:54 am to dcbl
quote:
puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator
There's an epidemic of this going around
Posted on 11/1/25 at 7:59 am to dcbl
Now bar this lunatic judge.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:08 am to dcbl
The initial "ruling" was a total overreach, and served as the 1 millionth example of lawfare.
Of course, a couple of people here still don't know what that word even means.
Of course, a couple of people here still don't know what that word even means.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:30 am to dcbl
Correct and proper ruling
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:35 am to KCT
Federal judge rulings that have impacts outside their geographic jurisdiction should automatically be on hold until a court that that geographically encompasses the impact of the ruling can make their ruling.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:36 am to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Correct and proper ruling
And should have never been needed.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:42 am to TrueTiger
True
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:44 am to dcbl
So because it "infringes" it must be stopped. What about all of these gun laws?
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:53 am to dcbl
quote:
Ellis’ order “infringes on the separation of powers,” the appeals court ruled.
Ellis’ order “puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator,” according to the ruling.
It also sets up the court “as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the executive branch.”
But but but did she not put the standard "The Administration is likely to lose at the appeals level" line in her ruling?? Damn it that should work no?!?...NO?!?!
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:01 am to dcbl
But but but "No Kings"
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:23 am to dcbl
quote:
Ellis’ order “infringes on the separation of powers,” the appeals court ruled.
Ellis’ order “puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator,” according to the ruling.
It also sets up the court “as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the executive branch.”
Any appeal ruling which reaches that point should automatically trigger at least a censure from the Judicial Conference, if not an impeachment process in the House.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:29 am to dcbl
Aaannnnddddd another lunatic judge and their decree from their throne gets backhanded back to reality.
Next up, directive for the executive to disburse SNAP funds.
Next up, directive for the executive to disburse SNAP funds.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:31 am to CleverUserName
quote:won’t happen for several reasons
Next up, directive for the executive to disburse SNAP funds.
1. Trump has already made statements/inquiries about how he can follow the order
2. That means his DOJ is unlikely to challenge this, because…
3. It would be political suicide
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:43 am to dcbl
Bunch of district judges think they're the president these days.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 10:16 am to dcbl
Great ruling. The District Court’s order was so clearly wrong it's too bad there's not a sanction for it.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 10:49 am to mauser
quote:
Federal judge rulings that have impacts outside their geographic jurisdiction should automatically be on hold until a court that that geographically encompasses the impact of the ruling can make their ruling.
The supreme court has said as much, but these judges obviously dont care about the law, or the hierarchy of their own system.
Can we fight fire with fire. The executive branch is also the landlord of federal property. Close the courthouse she practices in, then arrest her for trespassing if she tries to enter.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News