superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,671
This is not surprising. It will be concerning if the resolution of the appeal takes more than a day or so.
—> US Sends More Immigrants to Salvadoran Prison | SCOTUS orders Admin to “facilitate” return of Abrego Garcia
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 854
- Views: 18K
- Politics
- Messages
- 17,533
I will admit that I have an incredibly shallow understanding of the laws surrounding habeus corpus, but those dissents were very well-written and an enjoyable (if not frustrting) read.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,671
This is actually not a bad decision. In fact, it's what I predicted would happen.
1. The specific issue is whether the case can proceed under the APA or has to use habeas corpus. That's a question with two basic consequences: a) can one lawyer represent all the defendants (in effect) by using the APA as a claim aggregator; and b) where must the case be litigated. In both cases, the primary concern has been that the defendants will be deprived of any meaningful ability to challenge the confinement. The court in Louisiana will probably find that due process isn't required, and also each defendant would need to argue individually about the constitutionality/legality of their removal.
2. But in this opinion, the Supreme Court actually did that work. It clarified that due process is required. So the LA court can't just affirm Trump, and the venue doesn't matter as much.
3. The Supreme Court conservatives generally have a bug up their butt about jurisdictional technicalities. It's actually something of a decent test for distinguishing conservative and liberal legal folks. So that was likely the outcome all along. It would have been worse to get a summary order.
- Messages
- 17,533
The venue may matter quite a bit in how Justice is meted out in the application of due process to each case, but at least SCOTUS didn’t put the threshold of requiring some sort of due process.
So can the people already in El Salvador file a habeas petition or is too late?
evrheel
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 279
in reference to
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,671
I would think so. They are still subject to US jurisdiction. I'm not sober enough to explain it well, but the 4th Circuit opinion discusses the technicalities to some degree. I don't remember all the language, but the idea was that the US is loaning them out, so to speak.
So do they file in Texas -- the location in which they were last in US -- or can they choose a different court? The Guantanamo cases were filed in DC (although perhaps that is different because there is no district court in Cuba).
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,671
I have no idea
- Messages
- 2,406
Does that include Trump?
- Messages
- 2,206
White House Confirms Trump Is Exploring Ways To ‘Deport’ U.S. Citizens
The administration could try removing American citizens if it identifies a pathway it can claim to be legal.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that President Donald Trump is exploring legal pathways to “deport” U.S. citizens to El Salvador, where the administration has already arranged to house deported immigrants in a prison known for its human rights abuses. (Watch the video, above.)
Leavitt suggested the effort would be limited to people who have committed major crimes, but Trump has also mentioned the possibility of sending people who commit lesser offenses abroad.
Any such move on the part of the Trump administration is certain to be challenged in court. It is also not clear what legal authority could be used to justify expelling U.S. citizens from their homeland.
- Messages
- 2,128
I assumme if it happens and goes to SCOTUs they will slow walk a responseWhite House Confirms Trump Is Exploring Ways To ‘Deport’ U.S. Citizens
The administration could try removing American citizens if it identifies a pathway it can claim to be legal.www.huffpost.com
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that President Donald Trump is exploring legal pathways to “deport” U.S. citizens to El Salvador, where the administration has already arranged to house deported immigrants in a prison known for its human rights abuses. (Watch the video, above.)
Leavitt suggested the effort would be limited to people who have committed major crimes, but Trump has also mentioned the possibility of sending people who commit lesser offenses abroad.
Any such move on the part of the Trump administration is certain to be challenged in court. It is also not clear what legal authority could be used to justify expelling U.S. citizens from their homeland.
tarheelbillie
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 216
Now that’s a picture the White House Faith Office should be really proud of .
BTW The Faith Office still has a limited quantity of the seven “supernatural blessings” for Easter season gifts of $1,000 or more. Unfortunately, trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible”, $59.99, is currently out of stock. Just wondering if God is getting his 10% cut.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,533
Trump Administration’s El Salvador Deportations Hit by New Legal Challenges
Judges in Texas and New York impose temporary restraints as lawyers for Venezuelan detainees shift their strategy following U.S. Supreme Court decision
GIFT LINK
—> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/tru...6e?st=PVTL5M&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink“Judges in New York and Texas have placed temporary guard rails on President Trump’s use of a wartime law to deport some alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, as lawyers adapt their legal playbook to challenge the administration following a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this week.
The American Civil Liberties Union this week has filed two lawsuits, one in Texas and another in New York, asking the courts to block the government from relocating or moving detainees jailed in those jurisdictions without at least 30 days notice and an opportunity to plead their cases.
Judges in those cases swiftly issued temporary restraining orders in their favor on Wednesday.
The order in New York applies to detainees in counties within the Southern District of New York where the case was brought.
The Texas order applies to those being held in the El Valle Detention Center, the facility where the government briefly detained dozens of Venezuelan migrants before deporting them last month to an El Salvador prison. …”
- Messages
- 17,533
“… The 5-4 decision [of SCOTUS] said the challenge should have been brought through the constitutional process of habeas corpus in the district where they have been held, not Washington.Trump Administration’s El Salvador Deportations Hit by New Legal Challenges
Judges in Texas and New York impose temporary restraints as lawyers for Venezuelan detainees shift their strategy following U.S. Supreme Court decision
GIFT LINK
“Judges in New York and Texas have placed temporary guard rails on President Trump’s use of a wartime law to deport some alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, as lawyers adapt their legal playbook to challenge the administration following a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this week.
The American Civil Liberties Union this week has filed two lawsuits, one in Texas and another in New York, asking the courts to block the government from relocating or moving detainees jailed in those jurisdictions without at least 30 days notice and an opportunity to plead their cases.
Judges in those cases swiftly issued temporary restraining orders in their favor on Wednesday.
The order in New York applies to detainees in counties within the Southern District of New York where the case was brought.
The Texas order applies to those being held in the El Valle Detention Center, the facility where the government briefly detained dozens of Venezuelan migrants before deporting them last month to an El Salvador prison. …”
However, the majority emphasized the detainees “are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge.”
…U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr, who was appointed to the Southern District of Texas bench by President Trump during his first term, said in his order Wednesday that he wanted to preserve the status quo for now while the case unfolds.
“Furthermore, if the United States erroneously removed an individual to another country based on the Proclamation, a substantial likelihood exists that the individual could not be returned to the United States,” he wrote, citing the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was erroneously deported last month to his home country of El Salvador, where he has been imprisoned.
The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block a lower court order directing it to bring Abrego Garcia back. …”