It looks like there will be justice for immigrant soldier Lucas Calixto, who was among the estimated 40 immigrant recruits who had recently been discharged or fallen into “questionable” status by the government, with no explanation as to why. Following a lawsuit—an considerable public backlash—“the Army has reversed its widely covered decision ... in what his lawyer called an acknowledgment that the move was ‘improper.’”

The discharge had blindsided Calixto, a 28-year-old recruit from Brazil, who had been “deemed to exhibit honorable service as recently as May and earned a recent promotion.” But, as Washington Post reporter Alex Horton tweeted, “there is evidence,” going back at least a year, that “the government is trying to strangle the immigrant recruitment program with bureaucracy.”

Calixto sued in June, claiming “the Army violated its own policies by not explaining why he was separated or giving him a chance to respond. The Army’s discharge also violated constitutional protections of due process under the Fifth Amendment, the lawsuit claimed.”

It’s not clear how much public reaction factored into the government’s reversal, but if that is the case, it wouldn’t be the first instance. Last March, the administration had to be publicly shamed into dropping deportation proceedings against Elia Crawford, the spouse of a special forces veteran. “After the Crawfords’ story published, Military Times was contacted by several other families also facing the deportation of a spouse.”

What a heartfelt thanks to the thousands of immigrant service members, and immigrant loved ones of service members, who have been willing to sacrifice sweat, tears and blood for love of country. Meanwhile, the traitorous commander in chief shamelessly sides with an authoritarian who ordered an attack on the U.S., and will very likely attempt further attacks in the future.

This unanimous order is unsurprising and welcome (given the analysis I put forward in this LA Times oped):

Time constraints require the court to decide immediately whether to permit Proposition 9 to be placed on the November 6, 2018, ballot pending final resolution of this matter. Although our past decisions establish that it is usually more appropriate to review challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005), we have also made clear that in some instances, when a substantial question has been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and the “hardships from permitting an invalid measure to remain on the ballot” outweigh the harm potentially posed by “delaying a proposition to a future election, ” it may be appropriate to review a proposed measure before it is placed on the ballot. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla (2016) 62 Cal.4th 486, 494; see also id., at pp. 496-497; accord, American Federation of Labor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, 697.) Because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity, and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election, respondent Alex Padilla, as Secretary of State of the State of California, is directed to refrain from placing Proposition 9 on the November 6, 2018, ballot. Both respondent Padilla and real party in interest Timothy Draper are ordered to show cause before this court, when the above matter is called on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioner, Planning and Conservation League, should not be granted. The returns of respondent and real party in interest are to be served and filed on or before Monday, August 20, 2018. Petitioner is ordered to serve and file its reply within 30 days of the timely-filed returns. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar and Kruger, JJ.

I expect this measure will never be placed before California voters. It is inconceivable to me that anyone could reasonably read the California Constitution to permit the state of California to be broken into three different states through the passage of a simple statute passed by a bare majority of California voters.

A federal judge on Monday said he will issue a temporary halt to deportations of migrant parents who are reunited with their children.

U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw said during court proceedings in San Diego that he will stay deportations pending resolution of the issue.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion earlier in the day that called for reunited migrant parents to be protected from deportation for seven days after being reconnected with their children.

The ACLU, which represents the plaintiffs in a high-profile case over family separations at the border, said the pause was needed to ensure that parents slated for removal can make informed decisions about whether to leave their children behind in the United States.