Contribution
Same-day explainer of a procedural reversal in the appeals of the rulings against the President’s 2025 executive orders targeting four law firms. It adds a plain-language account of the posture:
- the firms are plaintiffs in the district court and appellees on appeal;
- the four cases are consolidated in the D.C. Circuit;
- the government’s opening brief was due that Friday.
Key insight
The author’s point is that the reversal matters less for the appeal’s outcome, which she predicts the government will lose, than as evidence about DOJ’s credibility before courts. In her words, the Department has “again made clear that it serves the whims of the president”. She connects this to judges’ doubts about the presumption of regularity.
Assumptions
Premises and authorities the author relies on:
- The prior night’s post and reporting, including the NYT news story of 2026-03-03, which says DOJ had moved to drop the appeals.
- The NYT Editorial Board (2026-03-03): “This withdrawal of the administration’s withdrawal is amateurish … Judges — appointed by presidents of both parties — have repeatedly ruled that the executive orders were illegal.”
- The four district judges who ruled against the orders were “two Republican appointees and two Democratic ones”. This is asserted in the post, not documented in it.
- Just Security on the presumption of regularity; X posts by a Fox 9 reporter on Judge Bryan; NBC News on Tillis and Noem.
Key results
What the post reports and argues:
- The pleading. A “Motion To Withdraw Motion To Voluntarily Dismiss Appeals”, filed on 3 Mar 2026. The image shows USCA #25-5241, Doc #2161832, filed 03/03/2026.
- Her speculation. “Perhaps, although we don’t know for certain, it would be more accurate to say Trump told his Justice Department to change its mind.”
- Her procedural predictions.
- Granting the motion is within the court’s discretion, and “there’s no real reason the court shouldn’t let the government proceed”.
- A ruling is expected soon.
- The appeal is “very likely to be an embarrassing loss” in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
- The Zaid case. A fifth case, Mark Zaid’s security clearance (Judge Amir Ali: “retribution”), is not consolidated. The law firms argue it should stay separate.
- Minnesota. Judge Jeffrey Bryan (D. Minn.) told U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen he had “not ruled out the consequence of imprisonment” for continuing contempt over property seized from detained immigrants. He also admonished an ICE supervisor that “aliens” are “people … not space aliens”.
- Epstein files. DOJ “has still withheld approximately 3 million documents” despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
- Tillis and Noem. Senator Tillis told Secretary Noem she should resign, tying her dog-shooting account to DHS conduct, including “the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal agents”.
- Her closing call. Congress should police DOJ and DHS.
Claims
| id | claim | strength | support |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | DOJ filed a motion on 3 Mar 2026 to withdraw its motion to voluntarily dismiss the consolidated appeals | primary evidence cited | image of the pleading, p. 3 of 6 |
| C2 | The firms opposed | primary evidence cited | the pleading’s own text |
| C3 | The filer was the Associate Attorney General | assertion | not visible on the page shown |
| C4 | The President directed the reversal | assertion, flagged by the author as uncertain | none |
| C5 | Such a same-day reversal is “enormously unusual” | assertion (author’s professional judgment) | none |
| C6 | The four district judges split 2–2 by appointing party and all ruled against the orders | assertion | not documented in the post; unverified here |
| C7 | Judge Bryan threatened imprisonment for contempt | secondary (reporter’s X posts) | linked, not opened |
| C8 | DOJ withholds ≈3 million Epstein documents | assertion | none given |
| C9 | The government will lose on appeal | prediction | none |
Concepts
- Voluntary dismissal of an appeal
- Consolidated appeals
- Appellant and appellee
- Presumption of regularity
- Civil contempt
Connections
- A follow-up to the author’s post of 2 Mar 2026 (not read).
- Later events, from web-search snippets only and unverified:
- A Susman Godfrey brief is captioned “Oral argument scheduled for May 14, 2026”.
- One snippet says the D.C. Circuit granted the motion to withdraw on 16 Mar 2026. It was garbled and is not relied on.
Bearing on the record
Commentary on U.S. legal politics. It carries nothing for ML practice.
Limitations
- This is newsletter commentary. Apart from C1 and C2 its factual claims are the author’s or her linked secondary sources’.
- It is not self-contained: it presumes the previous night’s post.
- It is time-bound. Its predictions about C9 and the timing of a ruling are unverified here.
Open questions
- How did the D.C. Circuit rule on the motion, and on the merits after the scheduled 14 May 2026 argument?
Corrections to the seeded skim
- The dossier’s facts hold against the text.
- The pleading shown matches her description. The motion’s own text records the firms’ opposition, quoted as opposing “the government’s unexplained request to withdraw yesterday’s voluntary dismissal … Under no circumstances should the government’s unexplained about-face provide a basis for an extension of its brief.” The government’s argument is that “this Court has not yet granted the motion to dismiss, and it is the prerogative of Defendant-Appellants to pursue this appeal.”
- The Associate Attorney General as filer is not visible in the image. Vance says he filed it, but the image is p. 3 of 6 only, so this is unverified here.
- “This morning” in the post means 3 March, not 4 March. The UTC timestamp puts publication on the evening of 3 March US time.
- The dossier’s “about 3 million documents” is the author’s claim (“approximately 3 million”), unsourced in the post.