Law Dork

No. 25A964 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CHARLES L. BURTON, JR., Petitioner, JOHN Q. HAMM, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI MATT SCHULZ SUPREME COURT BAR # 306494 Counsel of Record DONNA VENABLE FEDERAL DEFENDERS FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Charles L. Burton, Jr., respectfully moves to withdraw his Application for Stay of Execution Pending Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed on March 3, 2026, as moot following Governor Kay Ivey’s grant of executive clemency on March 10, 2026. Because Mr. Burton no longer faces execution, a stay is no longer necessary for this Court to have adequate time to consider his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Respectfully submitted, MATT SCHULZ Counsel of Record FEDERAL DEFENDERS FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

And, there we go ...

Sonny Burton's SCOTUS application for a stay of execution is being withdrawn because it is no longer needed.

STATE OF ALABAMA March 10, 2026 John Q. Hamm, Commissioner Alabama Department of Corrections 301 S. Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36130 Dear Commissioner Hamm: Pursuant to the authority granted to the Governor of Alabama by the Alabama Constitution, I hereby commute the death sentence of Charles Lee Burton to life imprisonment without parole. See Ala. Const. art. V, § 124 (governor's power to grant reprieves and commutations to persons under sentence of death); Ala. Code § 15-22-27(b) ("[a]ny person whose sentence to death has been commuted by the Governor shall not be eligible for a parole"). Prior to exercising this power, I notified a designated member of the family of the victim, Mr. Doug Battle. I also notified the Attorney General. Sincerely, 似 Kay Ivey Governor

UPDATE: Law Dork has been provided a copy of Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey's commutation of Charles "Sonny" Burton. www.lawdork.com/p/alabama-so...

Alabama was set to kill Sonny Burton on Thursday. Governor Kay Ivey stopped it. Sonny Burton did not kill anyone, but Alabama put him on death row. Update: Ivey granted Burton clemency on March 10, commuting his death sentence to a life sentence.

HUGE: Alabama was set to kill Sonny Burton on Thursday. Governor Kay Ivey stopped it.

Sonny Burton did not kill anyone, but Alabama put him on death row. Ivey granted Burton clemency on March 10, commuting his death sentence to a life sentence.

Law Dork coverage:

I covered this story at Law Dork over the weekend and am very glad to see that Gov. Ivey stopped this execution from taking place. www.lawdork.com/p/alabama-so...

Former military lawyers say use of JAG lawyers in Minnesota violates the Posse Comitatus Act Although recent litigation has focused on troop deployments to American cities, a new challenge in Minnesota looks at DOJ's use of JAG lawyers in non-military cases.

BREAKING: Former military lawyers say use of JAG lawyers in Minnesota violates the Posse Comitatus Act.

Although recent litigation has focused on troop deployments to American cities, a new challenge in Minnesota looks at DOJ's use of JAG lawyers in non-military cases.

New, at Law Dork:

This is the second DC District court ruling that came over the weekend because the judge was ruling before a March 9 deadline relevant to the case.

Another March 9 deadline is why we got the Kari Lake ruling over the weekend. See my coverage here: www.lawdork.com/p/trump-admi...

Trump admin effort to claim Kari Lake had power over Voice of America was illegal, judge rules "The Court declines Lake’s invitation to do such violence to the statutory and constitutional scheme," Judge Lamberth ruled on Saturday. And, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.

NEW: Trump admin effort to claim Kari Lake had power over Voice of America was illegal, judge rules.

"The Court declines Lake’s invitation to do such violence to the statutory and constitutional scheme," Judge Lamberth ruled on Saturday.

A dive into Lamberth's opinion, tonight, at Law Dork —>

Alabama is set to kill Sonny Burton on Thursday. Governor Kay Ivey must stop it. Sonny Burton did not kill anyone, but Alabama put him on death row and his execution is scheduled to be carried out this week — unless Ivey grants clemency or courts intervene.

Alabama is set to kill Sonny Burton on Thursday for a murder that everyone agrees he did not commit.

Governor Kay Ivey must stop it.

This weekend at Law Dork:

The result of this was Judge Tunheim ordering compensation under the Federal Torts Claims Act for lost or otherwise not returned property. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Alabama is set to kill Sonny Burton on Thursday. Governor Kay Ivey must stop it. Sonny Burton did not kill anyone, but Alabama put him on death row and his execution is scheduled to be carried out this week — unless Ivey grants clemency or courts intervene.

NEW: Alabama is set to kill Sonny Burton on Thursday. Governor Kay Ivey must stop it.

Sonny Burton did not kill anyone, but Alabama put him on death row and his execution is scheduled to be carried out this week — unless Ivey grants clemency or courts intervene.

Tonight, at Law Dork:

The district court case is before Judge Reyes, who had denied a stay pending appeal almost two weeks ago:

Per Curiam Order Filed (Special Panel) – #2162598 in Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot v. Donald Trump (D.C. Cir., 26-5050) – CourtListener.com PER CURIAM ORDER [2162598] filed denying the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal [2158045-2] (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). Before Judges: Walker, Pan and Garcia. ( Judge Walker would grant the motio...

Order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

United States Onurt of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 26-5050 September Term, 2025 1:25-cv-02471-ACR Filed On: March 6, 2026 Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, et al., Appellees V. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, et al., Appellants BEFORE: Walker, Pan, and Garcia, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal, the opposition thereto, the reply, the amicus briefs, and the Rule 28(i) letters, it is ORDERED that the motion for a stay be denied.

BREAKING: DC Circuit, on a 2-1 vote, keeps in place a lower court order blocking DHS Sec. Noem’s effort to end Haiti temporary protected status designation.

Judges Pan and Garcia deny DOJ’s request to stay the district court order. Judge Walker would have granted it.

Haiti TPS is safe for now.

#01208828508 in Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.C. Cir., 25-5310) – CourtListener.com APPELLANT BRIEF [2162591] filed by All Federal Agencies and Agency Heads, Pamela J. Bondi, Brendan Carr, DOJ, EEOC, Stephen Ehekian, FCC, Tulsi Gabbard, GSA, Scott Kupor, Andrea R. Lucas, Office of th...

Here's the full DOJ brief: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS USCA Case #25-5310 • Document #2162591 Filed: 03/06/2026 Page 2 of 97 STANLEY E. WOODWARD, JR. Associate Attorney General ABHISHEK S. KAMBLI Deputy Associate Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice

INTRODUCTION Courts cannot tell the President what to say. Courts cannot tell the President what not to say. They cannot tell the President how to handle national security clearances. And they cannot interfere with Presidential directives instructing agencies to investigate racial discrimination that violates federal civil rights laws. Nor can they interfere with Presidential directives instructing agencies to review contracts or regulate government building access based on those same racial-discrimination and national-security concerns especially where such directives have not yet been implemented. Ignoring those constraints, the district courts below bent over backwards to facially invalidate every section of four Executive Orders without considering their plainly constitutional aspects and applications. This appeal of those sweeping decisions is not about the sanctity of the American law firm; it is about lower courts encroaching on the constitutional power of the President to discuss and address invidious racial discrimination, national security risks, and other problems with certain law firms.

In recognition of those problems, many law firms agreed to address their practices and commit to providing pro bono work in the public interest.1 These consolidated appeals concern four Executive Orders ("EOs") through which the President addressed risks from four other law firms: Perkins Coie LLP ("Perkins"), Jenner & Block LLP ("Jenner"), Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP ("WilmerHale"), and Susman Godfrey LLP ("Susman"). The substantially similar EOs directed a review of plaintiffs to ensure that the Federal Government's dealings with them are consistent with our Nation's civil rights laws, national security, and other public interests. In response, plaintiffs raised facial challenges under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Four district courts issued permanent injunctions against the four EOs. That was error, because the EOs are well within the Presidential prerogative. 1 Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Latham & Watkins LLP; Milbank LLP; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; and Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.

NEW: After starting the week by announcing it was dropping the appeals, two political appointees at DOJ filed the government's brief backing Trump's law firm executive orders, previously declared unconstitutional by four different district court judges.

Background: www.lawdork.com/p/doj-to-dro...

INTRODUCTION Nearly three months ago, the district court stayed a Department of Homeland Security policy that imposed waiting periods before members of Congress could conduct oversight visits at immigration detention facilities, notwithstanding an appropriations rider prohibiting precisely such a policy. Rather than heed the court's order or seek appellate review, DHS waited three weeks and then secretly reissued a substantively identical policy, which has now also been stayed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705. Defendants-appellants the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and their respective heads (collectively DHS) now seek emergency relief from this Court, but there is quite transparently no emergency for DHS.

DHS has made no showing that it will experience irreparable injury warranting this Court's emergency intervention while the appeal is pending. The entirety of DHS's irreparable-harm argument is contained in a single sentence and includes only a speculative fear of unexplained "safety" concerns. Mot. 26. As the district court found, "during the pendency of this litigation, Defendants have not cited any concrete examples of safety issues posed by congressional visits without advanced notice, let alone the significant harm necessary to justify a stay of the [district court's order." Add.286. DHS cannot overcome the high bar to obtain the stay it seeks, "a rare form of emergency relief reserved for true emergencies," Fed. Educ. Ass'n v. Trump, No. 25-5303, 2025 WL 2738626, at *3 (D.C. Cir. Sep. 25, 2025), and this Court should not credit DHS's attempt to do so by issuing an immediate administrative stay.

Here is the plaintiff members of Congress's opposition to DOJ's request for an immediate administrative stay — which was filed just before 5p Thursday, after DOJ's request came in after 9p Wednesday: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

UPDATE: Here are the five DOJ lawyers who went to the D.C. Circuit to back Noem's effort to keep members of Congress from conducting oversight at immigration detention facilities. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

All three are right that there was weirdness with how the case — Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, the protesters & press case — was disposed of, but Brennan and Scudder's "per curiam" (unsigned) opinion comes across as desperate to weigh in on that — and the merits — despite no one wanting an appeal.

When one party confesses error on a district court’s deci- sion but the other still seeks relief, judges are entitled to re- solve what remains of the conflict. See, e.g., Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257, 258–59 (1942). But when all parties declare that they do not want judicial aid, the litigation should end forthwith. My colleagues are troubled by some of the events in this litigation, and I share those concerns. But appellate judges’ dissatisfaction with the district court’s handling of a suit should not matter unless at least one of the parties is dissatis- fied—and none of the parties to this case now expresses dis- satisfaction. In recent years the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of adhering to the party-presentation princi- ple. See, e.g., United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (2020); Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. 7 (2025). Today’s decision goes well beyond what the parties are contesting (for they are no longer contesting anything). We should have left in place

Meanwhile, over at the Seventh Circuit, we've got Reagan appointee Frank Easterbrook asking two Trump appointees — Brennan and Scudder — why they're still issuing a ruling vacating a district court's order where there is no case left. ecf.ca7.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servl...

LAW dork It is essential that the government's filings in such a case are easily accessible (as well as the filings from the plaintiffs' lawyers). There are many reasons, but, importantly, such filings should be available in case the government isn't following the order and a refugee needs help in the middle of the night, and a lawyer who is contacted and previously uninvolved in the case needs to get caught up on the case and arguments quickly. Beyond that, though, once classwide relief is ordered, the public has an even greater interest in the case than it already has in public access to the courts. As Law Dork's lawyers stated in asking for the remote access: This court should join the courts across the country that have recognized the need to increase public access in cases involving immigration enforcement and exercised their discretion to lift the Rule's access limitations. See, e.g., Kordia v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-1072, Dkt. No. 47 (N.D. Tex. June 2, 2025); Mahdawi v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-389, Dkt. No. 73 (D. Vt. May 23, 2025); Khalil v. Joyce, No. 1:25-cv-1935, Dkt. No. 29 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2025); Sorto-Vasquez Kidd v. Noem, No. 2:20-cv-3512-ODW, 2025 WL 1715514, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2025). Increased access is particularly appropriate in cases involving class claims, where both the public and class members have an interest in ensuring that the government complies with the class-wide relief ordered. See Sorto-Vasquez Kidd v. Noem, 2025 WL 1715514, at *1 ("Class members, and the public at large, should be given easy access to filings related to requests to Defendants' compliance with the agreement and the Court's enforcement of the settlement."). Because that is the case here, Dkt. No. 133 at 55-63, 66, and because Plaintiffs' privacy interests are already well-protected, Dkt. No. 30, 31, the Court should grant Law Dork's request. See Sorto-Vasquez Kidd v. Noem, 2025 WL 1715514, at *2.

I'd like to highlight one particular aspect of our claim. While the default rule in FRCP 5.2 can make sense in certain instances, that logic — regardless of other arguments — absolutely goes out the window once classwide relief is granted.

I'm glad we note that. www.lawdork.com/p/law-dork-o...

Here's the Law Dork filing you can't access on PACER. All of this refugee case's filings should be online. A magistrate judge denied Law Dork's request for online access to the docket in a significant refugee rights case in Minnesota. Law Dork's lawyers filed their objection on Tuesday.

A magistrate judge denied Law Dork's intervention in the Minnesota refugee case. We objected Wednesday.

I had to post the filing online so you could read it. Otherwise, you'd need to go to the actual courthouse in Minnesota to do so.

It shouldn't be like that for any of the filings in the case.

INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court twice stayed the district court's sweeping nationwide, classwide preliminary injunction restraining the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) process for "third country removals" to a country other than the one designated in an alien's removal order. See DHS v. D.V.D., 145 S. Ct. 2153 (2025) (D.V.D. 1); DHS v. D.V.D., 145 S. Ct. 2627, 2629 (2025) (D.V.D. II). But after dissolving that preliminary injunction, the district court immediately replaced it with equally sweeping final relief vacating DHS's policy and entering declaratory relief mirroring the earlier injunction. This Court must consider the Supreme Court's prior stay orders when determining whether to stay the district court's final judgment, Trump v. Boyle, 145 S. Ct. 2653, 2654 (2025), and they call for the same relief here.

NEW: DOJ asks the First Circuit to stay Judge Murphy's final judgment in the third-country removals case, citing prior SCOTUS stays of earlier rulings in the case and other SCOTUS shadow docket stays (in the firing cases): storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Here's the Law Dork filing you can't access on PACER. All of this refugee case's filings should be online. A magistrate judge denied Law Dork's request for online access to the docket in a significant refugee rights case in Minnesota. Law Dork's lawyers filed their objection on Tuesday.

NEW: Here's the Law Dork filing you can't access on PACER. All of this refugee case's filings should be online.

A magistrate judge denied Law Dork's request for online access to the docket in a significant refugee rights case in Minnesota. Law Dork's lawyers filed their objection on Tuesday.

Donald J. Trump @realDonald Trump I am pleased to announce that the Highly Respected United States Senator from the Great State of Oklahoma, Markwayne Mullin, will become the United States Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), effective March 31, 2026. The current Secretary, Kristi Noem, who has served us well, and has had numerous and spectacular results (especially on the Border!), will be moving to be Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas, our new Security Initiative in the Western Hemisphere we are announcing on Saturday in Doral, Florida. I thank Kristi for her service at "Homeland." Serving 10 years in the United States House of Representatives, and 3 in the Senate, Markwayne has done a tremendous job representing the wonderful People of Oklahoma, where I won all 77 out of 77 Counties — in 2016, 2020, and 2024! A MAGA Warrior, and former undefeated professional MMA fighter, Markwayne truly gets along well with people, and knows the Wisdom and Courage required to Advance our America First Agenda. As the only Native American in the Senate, Markwayne is a fantastic advocate for our incredible Tribal Communities. Markwayne will work tirelessly to Keep our Border Secure, Stop Migrant Crime, Murderers, and other Criminals from illegally entering our Country, End the Scourge of Illegal Drugs and, MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN. Markwayne will make a spectacular Secretary of Homeland Security. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP 865 ReTruths 2.64k Likes Mar 05, 2026, 1:41 PM

NEWS: President Trump says Sec. Kristi Noem is out at DHS.

Trump also says that Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin will be his next nominee for secretary of DHS, although Trump doesn't word it that way.

Finally, he says Noem will have a new federal role in a new initiative soon to be announced.

Judge moves, cautiously, toward civil contempt in case over treatment of trans people in prison “Once I issue an order, it’s my intent to enforce it,“ Judge Lamberth told the government. And: Facing the Trump administration's ridiculousness. Until the elevator door closes.

There are Many Items of Note in today’s Law Dork, including:
- the substance of the show cause hearing in the trans prison care case, including Royce Lamberth quotes
- a Royce Lamberth story
- an after-court “emergency” filing that DOJ didn’t even mention at the hearing
- several off-putting moments

Judge moves, cautiously, toward civil contempt in case over treatment of trans people in prison “Once I issue an order, it’s my intent to enforce it,“ Judge Lamberth told the government. And: Facing the Trump administration's ridiculousness. Until the elevator door closes.

NEW: Judge moves, cautiously, toward civil contempt in case over treatment of trans people in prison.

“Once I issue an order, it’s my intent to enforce it,“ Judge Lamberth told the government. And: Facing the Trump administration's ridiculousness. Until the elevator door closes.

Law Dork:

In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia J.G.G. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Plaintiffs; LIYANARA SANCHEZ, as next friend on behalf of FRENGEL REYES MOTA, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, V. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his officia sapacity as President of the Unite Respondents-Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all Respondents-Defendants appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the following judgments of this Court and all orders merging therewith: • Memorandum Opinion and Order of February 12, 2026 (ECF 247). Respectfully submitted, Brett A. Shumate Assistant Attorney General Yaakov M. Roth Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew C. Ensigr Deputy Assistant Attorney Genera August Flentje Special Counsel for Immigration Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Document 254 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 3 s/Tiberius T. Davis Tiberius T. Davis Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice

NEWS: DOJ is appealing Judge Boasberg’s February order that the people deported to CECOT under the claimed authority of the Alien Enemies Act receive the due process they have been illegally denied since March 15, 2025. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN UNITED STATES COURT HOUSE

I am headed in to the show cause hearing over whether BOP officials should face civil contempt for allegations they violated a court order barring retaliation against witnesses in a case over the Trump admin’s treatment of trans people in prison.

Background: www.lawdork.com/p/bop-contem...

The second and final SCOTUS opinion today is Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. The court, in an opinion by Sotomayor, unanimously holds that New Jersey Transit Corp. is not entitled to sovereign immunity. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...