I continue to be fascinated by the eroding “presumption of regularity,” and where it is (and isn’t) showing up in Supreme Court decisions in Trump-related cases. That erosion shows up in A.A.R.P. II in spades. Indeed, although the majority never quite brings itself to say the quiet part out loud, the point animating most of its disagreement with the dissent is its unwillingness to rest its analysis on the government’s representations rather than on the plaintiffs’ allegations. We’ll see if this skepticism remains limited to the removal context, or whether it starts showing up in other rulings in Trump-related cases. But it’s clearly the elephant in the room here.

Reply With Quote
Maryland Man
