Grad Students being disappeared by ICE

[superrific]

That's not the type of situation I'm talking about.

If that is happening, it is unacceptable.

But it is exactly what you are talking about. What do you think will happen if the executive branch can deem someone an illegal immigrant and deport them without due process? What makes you think it will be limited to

We are looking at a case where a guy had legal status. He could not be deported, by order of the court. And yet they deported him anyway, and now they say, "there's nothing we can do to get him back." So they fucked up and won't rectify it. Tell me why they couldn't do that to a citizen.

And saying it's "unacceptable" is a reason to put in guardrails before hand. It's why we insist on trials and don't just trust prosecutors. So if it's unacceptable to you, that's why due process has to be given in advance. To everyone.

 

[ZenMode]

But it is exactly what you are talking about. What do you think will happen if the executive branch can deem someone an illegal immigrant and deport them without due process? What makes you think it will be limited to

We are looking at a case where a guy had legal status. He could not be deported, by order of the court. And yet they deported him anyway, and now they say, "there's nothing we can do to get him back." So they fucked up and won't rectify it. Tell me why they couldn't do that to a citizen.

And saying it's "unacceptable" is a reason to put in guardrails before hand. It's why we insist on trials and don't just trust prosecutors. So if it's unacceptable to you, that's why due process has to be given in advance. To everyone.

You're talking about Mahmoud Khalil or someone else? Khalil is still in the US, last I heard.

 

[superrific]

You're talking about Mahmoud Khalil or someone else? Khalil is still in the US, last I heard.

I'm not talking about anyone in particular. I'm talking about due process. By the way, why do you think he's still in the US?

 

[ZenMode]

I'm not talking about anyone in particular. I'm talking about due process.

Unless what I read was wrong, the Alien Enemies act doesn't require a court hearing.

By the way, why do you think he's still in the US?

The courts ruled and the Trump admin listened?

 

[superrific]

Unless what I read was wrong, the Alien Enemies act doesn't require a court hearing. The courts ruled and the Trump admin listened?

1. It's unclear whether the Trump administration actually listened. We don't know what they are doing because they are being secretive and insisting that they don't have to share evidence with the court.

2. Is it your opinion that the Alien Enemies Act overturned the 5th amendment of the constitution, or that the 14th amendment excepted it? If not, then what the AEA requires or doesn't require is more or less irrelevant. There's a reason why it's been considered more or less unconstitutional really since its enactment.

There is one case I'm aware of that passed on the constitutionality of the AEA. It was called Korematsu. You might have heard of it. It was overturned in 2017.

3. It should be obvious by now that I'm more knowledgeable than almost all of what you read. It's time for you to use me as a source, not question me with some bullshit source who probably knows jack-shit. And there are plenty of other lawyers here to correct me if I'm wrong, and who do disagree with me from time to time. And nycfan posts links to credible legal analysts. It's just basically impossible for this community collectively to bungle a legal analysis.

 

[ZenMode]

1. It's unclear whether the Trump administration actually listened. We don't know what they are doing because they are being secretive and insisting that they don't have to share evidence with the court.

2. Is it your opinion that the Alien Enemies Act overturned the 5th amendment of the constitution, or that the 14th amendment excepted it? If not, then what the AEA requires or doesn't require is more or less irrelevant. There's a reason why it's been considered more or less unconstitutional really since its enactment.

There is one case I'm aware of that passed on the constitutionality of the AEA. It was called Korematsu. You might have heard of it. It was overturned in 2017.

3. It should be obvious by now that I'm more knowledgeable than almost all of what you read. It's time for you to use me as a source, not question me with some bullshit source who probably knows jack-shit. And there are plenty of other lawyers here to correct me if I'm wrong, and who do disagree with me from time to time. And nycfan posts links to credible legal analysts. It's just basically impossible for this community collectively to bungle a legal analysis.

I don't know if I'd call this a bullshit source. It's also not the only one I've read that says the AEA allows the President to deport people, under specific situations, without a hearing. So, yes, it appears that the intent was to circumvent the Constitution. The only question seems to be whether or not Trump is using the AEA as intended.

Trump asks justices to intervene on Alien Enemies Act removals (UPDATED) - SCOTUSblog

The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Friday morning, asking the justices to allow it to enforce an executive order that directs government officials to quickly remove, without a hearing, noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang. The order relies on a 1798 law t

www.scotusblog.com

The 18th -century Alien Enemies Act allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other judicial review when Congress has declared war or when an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” takes place. It was invoked during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

In his executive order, Trump found that Tren de Aragua – which Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” in February – “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” Based on that conclusion, he indicated that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”

 

[superrific]

I don't know if I'd call this a bullshit source. It's also not the only one I've read that says the AEA allows the President to deport people, under specific situations, without a hearing. So, yes, it appears that the intent was to circumvent the Constitution. The only question seems to be whether or not Trump is using the AEA as intended.

Trump asks justices to intervene on Alien Enemies Act removals (UPDATED) - SCOTUSblog

The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Friday morning, asking the justices to allow it to enforce an executive order that directs government officials to quickly remove, without a hearing, noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang. The order relies on a 1798 law t

www.scotusblog.com

The 18th -century Alien Enemies Act allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other judicial review when Congress has declared war or when an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” takes place. It was invoked during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

In his executive order, Trump found that Tren de Aragua – which Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” in February – “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” Based on that conclusion, he indicated that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”

1. Nazis in WWII were given hearings. Everyone has always been given hearings.
2. The AEA was used in WWII. That usage was declared constitutional at the time, but it has since been overturned. By the Roberts Court.
3. That is a loosely correct statement of what the AEA purports to do. The question is whether it is constitutional.

So, we return to the question: is it your opinion that the AEA overrides the constitution? This isn't a terribly difficult question. Answer it and then we can talk.

 

[Calheel]

1. It's unclear whether the Trump administration actually listened. We don't know what they are doing because they are being secretive and insisting that they don't have to share evidence with the court.

2. Is it your opinion that the Alien Enemies Act overturned the 5th amendment of the constitution, or that the 14th amendment excepted it? If not, then what the AEA requires or doesn't require is more or less irrelevant. There's a reason why it's been considered more or less unconstitutional really since its enactment.

There is one case I'm aware of that passed on the constitutionality of the AEA. It was called Korematsu. You might have heard of it. It was overturned in 2017.

3. It should be obvious by now that I'm more knowledgeable than almost all of what you read. It's time for you to use me as a source, not question me with some bullshit source who probably knows jack-shit. And there are plenty of other lawyers here to correct me if I'm wrong, and who do disagree with me from time to time. And nycfan posts links to credible legal analysts. It's just basically impossible for this community collectively to bungle a legal analysis.

We apparently bungled the presidential immunity legal analysis.

 

[superrific]

We apparently bungled the presidential immunity legal analysis.

We did not. Roberts did. And if that's not already plainly evident, it will be. Trump v US will go down in history as one of the very worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Of that, I am confident.

 

[ZenMode]

1. Nazis in WWII were given hearings. Everyone has always been given hearings.
2. The AEA was used in WWII. That usage was declared constitutional at the time, but it has since been overturned. By the Roberts Court.
3. That is a loosely correct statement of what the AEA purports to do. The question is whether it is constitutional.

So, we return to the question: is it your opinion that the AEA overrides the constitution? This isn't a terribly difficult question. Answer it and then we can talk.

Everything I've read talks about how dangerous the AEA is (currently) and that it should be repealed by Congress. If it has been ruled unconstitutional, wouldn't that nullify it just as it does any other unconstitutional law/act? How does it continue to exist to be invoked by any president?

 

[superrific]

Everything I've read talks about how dangerous the AEA is and that it should be repealed by Congress. If it has been ruled unconstitutional, wouldn't that nullify it just as it does any other unconstitutional law/act? How does it continue to exist to be invoked by any president?

1. Laws that are declared unconstitutional do not just go away. They should, but they don't. Hence the resurgence of the Comstock Act.
2. The AEA has never been held to be unconstitutional on its face, only as applied. The reason that it hasn't been declared unconstitutional on its face is that nobody has had standing to challenge it on its face. Khalil isn't going to challenge it on its face -- he's going to challenge it as applied to him.

That's one feature of the federal court system that frustrates me: laws can only be challenged by plaintiffs with standing, and standing requires a particularized injury. So the government can occasionally do unconstitutional things and courts can't review it.

3. I don't think the Supreme Court will declare the AEA unconstitutional on its face. I think they will skip that question, and say that it's unconstitutional as applied without due process. There's a principle that if a court can decide on narrow grounds, it should. It's not always respected by the reactionaries, but in this case that will be the outcome. It certainly should be the outcome.

 

[ZenMode]

1. Laws that are declared unconstitutional do not just go away. They should, but they don't. Hence the resurgence of the Comstock Act.
2. The AEA has never been held to be unconstitutional on its face, only as applied. The reason that it hasn't been declared unconstitutional on its face is that nobody has had standing to challenge it on its face. Khalil isn't going to challenge it on its face -- he's going to challenge it as applied to him.

That's one feature of the federal court system that frustrates me: laws can only be challenged by plaintiffs with standing, and standing requires a particularized injury. So the government can occasionally do unconstitutional things and courts can't review it.

3. I don't think the Supreme Court will declare the AEA unconstitutional on its face. I think they will skip that question, and say that it's unconstitutional as applied without due process. There's a principle that if a court can decide on narrow grounds, it should. It's not always respected by the reactionaries, but in this case that will be the outcome. It certainly should be the outcome.

Ok, so AEA hasn't been overturned on its face, but has been ruled unconstitutional in some specific situation?

2. That usage was declared constitutional at the time, but it has since been overturned. By the Roberts Court.

 

[superrific]

Ok, so AEA hasn't been overturned on its face, but has been ruled unconstitutional in some specific situation?

2. That usage was declared constitutional at the time, but it has since been overturned. By the Roberts Court.

The AEA was the statute used to justify the internment of Japanese citizens. That in itself says volumes about it. In the infamous case of Korematsu, decided during WWII, the Supreme Court said the internment was legal because alien enemies.

Korematsu has been widely considered one of the very worst decisions of all time, up there with Dred Scott and Plessy. In fact, it's not been considered good law for 50 years. It was formally overturned by Trump v. Hawaii in 2017, as "gravely wrong the day it was decided."

 

[ZenMode]

The AEA was the statute used to justify the internment of Japanese citizens. That in itself says volumes about it. In the infamous case of Korematsu, decided during WWII, the Supreme Court said the internment was legal because alien enemies.

Korematsu has been widely considered one of the very worst decisions of all time, up there with Dred Scott and Plessy. In fact, it's not been considered good law for 50 years. It was formally overturned by Trump v. Hawaii in 2017, as "gravely wrong the day it was decided."

It seems to me like you are presenting your opinion as fact. Even Roberts said Trump v Hawaii has nothing to do with Korematsu.

Given that this situation doesn't involve internment or any kind of travel ban, but merely deporting non-citizens who are viewed as a danger because of their association with specific countries, I don't see the basis for your assumptions.

 

[superrific]

It seems to me like you are presenting your opinion as fact. Even Roberts said Trump v Hawaii has nothing to do with Korematsu.

Given that this situation doesn't involve internment or any kind of travel ban, but merely deporting non-citizens who are viewed as a danger because of their association with specific countries, I don't see the basis for your assumptions.

It's not an "even." Roberts was distinguishing the facts presented in that case from the facts of precedential cases. That's one of the most fundamental methodologies/principles in Anglo-American jurisprudence.

The fact -- not opinion -- is that Korematsu is overturned. Korematsu was the leading pro-AEA case out there. Well, that one and Ludecke, which was a case more or less about when a war ends -- the case is literally about whether the president's war powers have to cease upon the announcement of a cease-fire or whether the war can go on a bit longer after actual hostilities cease.

My opinion, that is shared by pretty much every law-minded person I know, is that the Supreme Court is going to tell Trump that there has to be some sort of due process. The idea that we are sending people to hellholes in El Salvador based on tattoos is so frightening that the Supremes are unlikely to be on board with that. And having ruled on the due process grounds, they will probably leave the other issues for another day.

 

[nycfan]

As I posted before, he seemed like low-hanging fruit.

 

[superrific]

As I posted before, he seemed like low-hanging fruit.

LOL at the idea that these foreign students are given special treatment not available to American students.

And it doesn't matter what reason he had for suing Trump -- if Trump targeted him for his speech in any way, then the suit is potentially meritorious.

The problem for him is the assault and trespassing.