DeSantis had begun shutting the facility down due to this order. Only a couple hundred emails remained.

And now: They can begin processing illegal alien criminals again.

A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a judge's order requiring Florida and the federal government to shut down and dismantle a controversial immigration detention facility built in the Everglades, widely referred to as "Alligator Alcatraz."

On Thursday, the Eleventh US Circuit Court of Appeals granted requests from the State of Florida and the US Department of Homeland Security to stay a district court's preliminary injunction that would have forced the site to wind down operations within 60 days. A preliminary injunction is a temporary order put in place until a court can make a final decision in a case.

"After careful consideration, we grant the defendants' motions and we stay the preliminary injunction and the underlying case itself pending appeal," ruled the divided three-judge panel in the majority opinion.

The makeshift detention facility had been the subject of intense criticism for its treatment of migrants who had been confined there amid sweltering heat, bug infestations and meager meals, prompting members of Congress and state representatives that witnessed the conditions to demand its immediate closure.

Suck a dick. That's called "Florida," and that's where these Maryland Men chose to invade.

The stay comes about a week after Florida Division of Emergency Management Executive Director Kevin Guthrie said "we are probably going to be down to 0 individuals within a few days" in an email exchange shared with CNN. Guthrie sent the message to South Florida Rabbi Mario Rojzman in response to his request to provide chaplaincy services at the facility.

Despite the controversy surrounding the facility, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is doubling down on immigrant detention centers in his state -- including the announcement of two new immigration detention facilities he dubbed "Deportation Depot" in northeast Florida and "Panhandle Pokey" in the Florida Panhandle.

You will not be surprised to learn that this Lowly District Court Judge once again completely ignored recent Supreme Court precedent to get the outcome xhe wanted.

Before considering these factors, however, we find it necessary to discuss the nature of the Plaintiffs' claim on appeal here.

The Plaintiffs sought and obtained injunctive relief based on an al-leged violation of NEPA. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 605 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), the Supreme Court recently addressed what NEPA does--and does not--require, as well as the role of the federal judiciary when considering a claim asserting a violation of that statute. Inexplicably, other than a passing citation using a "see also" signal on page 46, the district court's order does not mention the Supreme Court's most recent decision about the statute lying at the heart of this case.

NEPA, the Supreme Court ruled, imposes no "substantive" restrictions on building, but only requires a process of preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). Those statements do not have to be the basis of a decision to build or not build -- they only need to be prepared, provided to decisionmakers. They create no obligation of political decisionmakers to kill projects due to a negative EIS.

But the lowly district court judge completely ignored this and blew it off with a "see also" instead of taking it as absolutely controlling the outcome of this case, which it does.

As the Supreme Court stated:

Unlike those later-enacted laws, however, NEPA imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions. NEPA is a purely procedural statute
that . . . simply requires an agency to prepare an EIS--in essence, a report. Importantly, NEPA does not require the agency to weigh environmental con-
sequences in any particular way. Rather, an agency may weigh environmental consequences as the agency reasonably sees fit under its governing statute
and any relative substantive environmental laws.

Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it. Id. Because NEPA is "purely procedural," id. at 1510, and the EIS is "only one input into an agency's decision," id. at 1511, the EIS that NEPA requires "does not itself require any substantive outcome," id. at 1511, nor is an agency "constrained by NEPA from
deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs," id.

But the lowly left-wing communist judge ignored this and took the EIS as proof that Alligator Alcatraz must be shut down.

And we are mindful that the Supreme Court intended Seven County to act as a "course correction" to bring "judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense." Id. at 1514. The Court noted the potential for abuse inherent in judicial treatment of NEPA as something other than a procedural
statute: "NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents (who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment) to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects." Id. at 1513.

This leads me nicely to this NBC Fake News (TM) story: Like cowards, left-wing communist judges are anonymously complaining that the Supreme Court is requiring them to follow Supreme Court precedent and not just make up whatever law is necessary to hand their fellow communists a court victory.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.

So, if you've followed my posts on this, you know that the Lowly District Court judges keep employing the same strategy to ignore clear Supreme Court precedent: they claim that the Supreme Court's rulings are "vague" and therefore that gives them the power to set those "vague" rulings aside and do whatever the F*** they wanna do.

Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges -- appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country -- pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:

Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.

LOL. They "painstakingly research the law."

As you just saw, the lowly district court judge in the Alligator Alcatraz case ignored a recent, clear, controlling Supreme Court ruling by just saying "see also."

Here's my left-wing take on this issue, which I just made up to let the activists win. (Who are, of course, not really questioning Alligator Alcatraz on environmental grounds; they just don't want illegal aliens deported, and this is a handy line of attack.)

Now that I've told you my left-wing motivated reasoning, "see also" the Supreme Court precedent that completely contradicts my own personal left-wing Body of "Law."

And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges' decisions with little to no explanation.

Because they just ruled on this, and you ignored it, so the "little to no explanation" is "see this case we just decided."

Not "see also" this case, but see only this case which completely controls (that is, determines, forces) your own ruling.

Emergency rulings used to be rare. But their number has dramatically increased in recent years.

Ten of the 12 judges who spoke to NBC News said the Supreme Court should better explain those rulings, noting that the terse decisions leave lower court judges with little guidance for how to proceed. But they also have a new and concerning effect, the judges said, validating the Trump administration's criticisms. A short rebuttal from the Supreme Court, they argue, makes it seem like they did shoddy work and are biased against Trump.

See also: The Constitution.

"It is inexcusable," a judge said of the Supreme Court justices. "They don't have our backs."

See also: Article II of the Constitution.

See also: the Federalist Paper's discussion of the separation of powers.

And the left is going to play its usual propaganda play: You have to obey us because we're getting vague "threats" from "right-wing terrorists" and therefore everyone must accept our made-up communist gobbledygook fake law as the real law.

It's the only way to defend us from Twitter Mobs, you see.

All 12 judges spoke on condition that they not be identifiable, some because it is considered unwise to publicly criticize the justices who ultimately decide whether to uphold their rulings and others because of the risk of threats.

Judges are increasingly targeted, with some facing bomb threats, "swattings" and other harassment. Judges especially involved in high-profile cases -- and their families -- have reported receiving violent threats.

Meanwhile, they continue to deny that Trump was shot, and the latest VP nominee openly prays for Trump's death.

See also.