Mike Sacks

@mikesacks.bsky.social

23.6Kfollowers

864following

2.4Kposts

NY-17 Congressional Candidate. Democracy advocate. Former political-legal journalist. Retired competitive air guitarist. Second-Best dad ever. mikesacksforcongress.com

Pinned posts

Pinned

Mike Sacks·Apr 9

I’m running for Congress. I’ve spent my career holding the powerful accountable as a political & legal journalist. I’m running for Congress to tell you the truth, fight for New York, and Unf*ck Our Country. Join us: secure.actblue.com/donate/mbs-e... Learn more: www.youtube.com/watch?v=20U5...

180

937

4.8K

Latest posts

Mike Sacks·22h

SCOTUS is gonna gut what remains of the Voting Rights Act and hope not to suffer any political blowback because the ruling won’t affect THIS midterm election

Mike Sacks·2d

Knights of Cydonia vibes are strong (and intentional?) with this one

Mike Sacks·2d

Cult

Mike Sacks·3d

OFUUPOS

Mike Sacks·3d

Oh look a Trump judge on the 8th Circuit suggesting in a footnote that the federal ban on machine gun possession may be unconstitutional under Bruen ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/03...

4 Although we held in United States v. Fincher that "possession of [a machine] gun[] d[oes] not fall within the protection of the Second Amendment," 538 F.3d 868 872 (8th Cir. 2008), it is hard to square with Bruen. Compare id. at 873 (concluding

that possession of a machine gun was not protected by the Second Amendment because it was not "reasonably related to a well-]regulated militia"), with Bruen,
597 U.S. at 20, 26-30 (explaining that the right "does not depend on service in the militia" and requires firearms regulations to be consistent with the Second Amendment's "text and historical understanding"); see also Charles, 159 F.4th at 546-48 (analyzing a facial challenge to § 922(o) under Bruen, not Fincher).

Mike Sacks·3d

Factory worker and cab driver mikesacksforcongress.com

Mike Sacks·3d

DC’s highest court splits with every fed appeals court that’s reviewed high capacity magazine bans since Bruen. The full court may vacate this, but the fully and newly Trumpified 3rd Circuit is likely to strike down NJ’s similar law along with its assault weapons ban. So the issues are SCOTUS-bound.

Mike Sacks·3d

All-Republican CA9 panel mostly unblocks Trump’s EO suspending and defunding US Refugee Admissions Programs. GWB judges in majority. Trump judge in partial dissent says Trump shoulda totally won, and accuses judges standing up for the law of “imperialism.” cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...

BYBEE, Circuit Judge:
On January 20, 2025, the President issued Executive Order No. 14163, "Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program." 90 Fed. Reg. 8459 (Jan. 20, 2025).
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a), the President determined that "entry into the United States of refugees under the [United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States" and directed that "entry into the United States of refugees under the USRAP be suspended" pending further findings. Exec. Order. No. 14163, § 3(a). In response to the Executive Order, the Department of State suspended all funding of the USRAP program, purportedly pursuant to a different executive order entitled "Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid." Exec. Order No. 14169, 90 Fed. Reg. 8619 (Jan. 20, 2025). Pending further review, this included the suspension of funding for
(1) processing applications from persons outside the United States seeking refugee status here and (2) domestic resettlement services for refugees admitted to the United States.
Plaintiffs are refugees who have been recently admitted to the United States; refugees who have been approved for resettlement in the United States but remain outside the country; U.S.-based individuals seeking admission for their family members or sponsees; and three organizations that had cooperative agreements with the State Department to provide overseas processing and domestic resettlement services. Plaintiffs allege that Executive Order No. 14163's suspension of the refugee program violates the Refugee Act

of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (codified in various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.), and that the defunding of USRAP violates various provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. The district court issued two preliminary injunctions prohibiting the enforcement or implementation of §§ 3(a), (b), (c), and 4 of Executive Order No. 14163 and the suspension of USRAP funding and reinstating the terminated cooperative agreements. The Government sought review.
Our task is to determine whether the President's actions were within the statutory authority granted him under the
INA. Whether we agree with those actions is beside the point: "The wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration." Sale v.
Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 165 (1993).
"We do not sit as a committee of review...." TVA v. Hill,
437 U.S. 153, 194-95 (1978). We conclude that, with one exception, Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits. We thus vacate the preliminary injunctions in large measure.

We recognize the enormous practical implications of this decision. There are over one hundred thousand vetted and conditionally approved refugees, many of whom may have spent years completing the USRAP process in a third country only to be turned away on the tarmac. But such a result is one potential consequence of Congress's sweeping grant of power to the President to "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Whether that consequence reflects prudent policy is not a question for this court. To hold otherwise would be to substitute our judgment for Congress's, and the President's authority under
§ 1182(f) precludes much of Plaintiffs' request for relief here.
Because Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenges to Executive Order No. 14163, the cessation of refugee processing and admissions, and the funding of refugee resettlement services abroad, we reverse those portions of the preliminary injunctions as an abuse of discretion. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 32. But because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their APA challenge to the termination of cooperative agreements
76
PACITO V. TRUMP
to provide domestic resettlement services, we affirm the district court's preliminary injunctions to the extent they require the Government to reinstate such cooperative agreements necessary to provide the resettlement services described in § 1522 to refugees who have been admitted to the United States. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

LEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:
I agree with Judge Bybee's magisterial analysis in Section IV.A. explaining why 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) authorizes the President to suspend the admissions of refugees. I, however, dissent on two points, both of which are close calls.
First, I do not think we have jurisdiction over the organizational plaintiffs' claims because they effectively seek reinstatement of funding for refugee resettlement services. Such breach-of-contract claims seeking money from the federal government must be heard by the Court of Federal Claims. Second, even if we do have jurisdiction, I believe the better reading of the statutory provisions is that the United States has discretion whether to fund these services.
I also write separately to highlight what happened in the district court because it reflects a recent trend that I fear will erode the credibility of the judiciary. To be clear, courts can and should intervene if the President oversteps legal bounds. We, however, must not be seduced by the temptation of judicial resistance: District courts cannot stand athwart, yelling "stop" just because they genuinely
PACITO V. TRUMP
77
believe they are the last refuge against policies that they deem to be deeply unwise. Otherwise, we risk inching towards an imperial judiciary that lords over the President and Congress. CJ. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 858
(2025) (warning against "embracing an imperial judiciary").

Mike Sacks·3d

Oh man looking forward to the Senatorial Courtesy on this clown’s confirmation

Mike Sacks·5d

This is the way mikesacksforcongress.com/the-fight

View all posts on Bluesky

Menu

Mike Sacks

Pinned posts

Top posts

Latest posts