In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a victory to the Trump Administration on the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act of suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. The Court ruled that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s March 15 order temporarily blocking deportation was invalid and that he should never have proceeded in the case. Rather, as some of us previously argued, the Court ruled that this is a habeas case that should be heard in Texas. Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh to support the Administration.
Boasberg’s actions have been closely followed and heralded by many. However, for some of us, this seemed like an odd habeas action where jurisdiction should reside in Texas. The concern was that, as shown in a number of these cases, the challengers forum shopped to get a favorable judge like Boasberg in Washington.
The Court ruled, “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.” That should have been Judge Boasberg’s response when the challengers first came to his courtroom. Instead, he set off a series of irregular hearings, including holding an emergency hearing on a Saturday despite not being the designated judge for such emergency matters that week.
The justices held that custody detainees are entitled to a hearing before deportation. However, the majority also offered key support for the Administration’s argument over presidential authority, writing “[c]hallenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude[s] judicial review,’ Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas.”
The decision not only overturned Boasberg’s order but also declared the District of Columbia an inappropriate venue for the case. That is a considerable victory for the Trump Administration and validates its long-standing position in the case.
Yet, it also reaffirmed that “[r]egardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas.” Those in custody will be accorded a hearing, though the odds are weighted heavily against them in prevailing in such a habeas action. That may be part of the reason the challengers seemed to equivocate on whether this was a habeas or Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case.
The majority takes a slight dig at the liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, noting that “[f]or all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.”
That line may be directed most at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who compared the deportations to the mass confinement of Japanese Americans in World War II and the decision in Korematsu.
“I lament that the Court appears to have embarked on a new era of procedural variability, and that it has done so in such a casual, inequitable, and, in my view, inappropriate manner. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___ , ___ (2025) (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). At least when the Court went off base in the past, it left a record so posterity could see how it went wrong. See, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.”
It is a bit more difficult to discern Justice Barrett’s position, who again joined the liberal justices. However, Barrett only joined in Parts II and III-B of the dissenting opinion. Part II is merely a couple of paragraphs long and deals with the fact that these detainees must receive due process. However, the majority held that such due process must be afforded. The Court is unanimous on that point.
It is Part III-B that is curious. That section states in part:
Also troubling is this Court’s decision to vacate summarily the District Court’s order on the novel ground that an individual’s challenge to his removal under the Alien Enemies Act “fall[s] within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus” and must therefore be filed where the plaintiffs are detained. . . . This conclusion is dubious.
Dubious? What precisely does that mean? If it is not a habeas, what is it? Given the majority’s ruling in favor of due process for the detainees, Barrett’s adoption of a fraction of the dissenting opinion left much unclear as to her view on what standard applies to these detainees.
Both sides can walk away with something in this opinion. For the challengers, it does reaffirm due process. However, as noted earlier, the habeas process will prove very difficult for these detainees under the controlling standards. This is more likely to offer a process but not the result that these challengers are seeking.
There is nothing ok about the exploitation of law by any of these actors, hasn’t been for some time, Boasberg is just the latest example. The pure hubris dripping off of these elites makes the guillotines presented by their spoiled children all the more hilarious and ironic; the fact that they can’t see that we see due to their equally enormous insularity and narcissism is just stunning.
Don’t let the door hit ya, ‘judge’. We sure won’t miss ya. when the elder dems are gone that party is simply going to dissolve into pure, unadulterated madness (nope! Not quite there yet, unfortunately). There is no one to pass a torch to on the modern left except people somehow even more insane. This will not end well – for *them*. It’s inevitable now, and more money won’t fix it for them.
I’ve said it before, but something so seemingly stupid as Elon Musk buying Twitter and restoring free speech to it might have saved the world in the 21st century, and that an immigrant such as himself believes in freedom so profoundly – let’s let it not be in vain. Midterms!
Sigh. Typo. James. I am me, that was my comment. Hate that we have to qualify, but for free speech I’ll take it.
Turnout in 1789 was 11.6%.
Voter qualifications were male, European, age 21, and 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
The Founders and Framers designed and implemented restrictions on the vote and voter qualifications by state legislatures, which is the only way to establish a rational, viable republic.
One man, one vote “democracy” is anarchy-cum-communism.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights provide natural and God-given rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities to all citizens.
Excellent. I wonder who will get to pay all the expenses associated with filing for habeus in Texas?
It likely will cost less, not more. DC is very expensive.
We have seen for awhile that district courts and courts of appeal ignore or do workarounds on Supreme Court precedents.
Now that the Court has told plaintiffs they must file their action in the proper venue, Texas, the wannabe emperor, Boasberg, has asked plaintiffs to brief him on why the matter must remain in DC rather than Texas.
https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1909606916503798124
Even the ladies on the Court might be annoyed by that. We will see. Meanwhile, activist judges continue deconstructing our judicial system. Congress must act. Failing that, district courts have given the President enough precedents for ignoring the Supreme Court.
Julie Kelly has more on it on her substack:
https://www.declassified.live/p/scotus-halts-boasberg-for-now
@Young
Yes, and for years. Why do we presume that the modern left cares on whit about the rule of law? They don’t. Circumvent is their motto.
This is Great.
I wrote last night that those on the right should leave this be, now that SCOTUS has spoken.
That they should not try to impeach Boasberg or otherwise remove him.
But that advice presumes that he does as SCOTUS ordered.
Once again – judges deal with cases and controversies that are BROUGHT TO THEM.
They are not free to go out looking for them.
They are not supposed to be providing legal advice to one side or the other.
The plantiffs in the DC case are free ON THEIR OWN to file a motion in Boasberg’s court asserting that for some reasons SCOTUS’s order does not preclude the case from continuing in his court.
Judge Boasberg is NOT free to solicit such pleadings. He is a neutral judge, not an advocate.
The further over his skis judges like Boasberg go – the more justified Congress is in removing them.
A judge openly trying to circumvent a Supreme court decision is bad conduct.
“The Court ruled that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s March 15 order temporarily blocking deportation was invalid and that he should never have proceeded in the case.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Boasberg acted wittingly, deliberately, capriciously, politically, and partially to the point of criminality.
Boasberg knew full well that what he was doing was deviant and illicit.
Boasberg has exhibited actionable bad behaviour and retains no repute.
Boasberg must be severely disciplined for perpetrating juridical corruption and biased lawfare.
Boasberg must be redressed to set an example and create a precedent.
“In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a victory to the Trump Administration on the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act of suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
The “Boasberg Four” must be impeached and convicted en masse in order for America to support, preserve, and perpetuate its Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The days of Justices opposing and defying the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution must be brought to an abrupt end.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“If not us, who? And if not now, when?”
– Ronald Reagan
____________________
“[A] limited Constitution…can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing…To deny this would be to affirm…that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Turls jumps up and down, chanting EL SALVADOR!!!! as he celebrates John Robert’s ignoring the Constitution again.
At least the court left room for hearings before going total Texas home job on this one.
Sorry, lawn boy, you lose again.
But, you libturds love losing.
You can’t see things any more backwards …….
I can see for miles and miles.
What part of the constitution did Roberts ignore ?
No the court did not leave room for hearings in DC.
The TdA cases must be filed in TX if they are filed at all.
They must be Habeuaus procedings. SCOTUS has required that DHS provide notice to TdA members that they are being deported, that they can make a Habeuas claim and giving them time to do so before deporting them.
That is all – that Habeaus claim must be in TX (unless they are detained elsewhere).
The court did not clarify where those in El Salvador under AEA get to file – but that is almost certainly TX.
And they do still have the right to file.
MS13 members are different – they are being deported to their HOME – El Salvador.
If El Salvador choses to incarcerate them – that is not our Business.
There is also going to be an issue because more recently Venezeuala agreed to accept TdA members.
I do not think Trump can deport to a third country if the home country will accept these people.
Trump may only be able to detain TdA members in El Salvador so long as Venezeulla refuses to accept them.
Now that they will, those TdA members in El Salvador have a Habeuas claim to be transfered to Venezeulla.
I do not want to judge whether they will win – while I lean towards that, there is a valid argument that so long as the presidential finding that Venezeula is using TdA to conduct a predatory incursion that TdA members need not be returned to Venezeula.
So much for the legal genius BOZOBERG! Not qualified to decide a traffic infraction – IDIOT!
Key takeaways: a 5 to 4 ruling–all because of McConnell denying Obama his choice of a SCOTUS justice and Trump cheating to get into office in 2016. This is the most-partisan SCOTUS in recent history, and the American public knows it and that sentiment is reflected in polls. Secondly, Turley is paid to spin this holding as a “win” for Trump, which it is not. At the end of today’s purchased piece, Turley admits that both sides got something–but that’s not the tone of the beginning–which is to create the illusion of some resounding “victory” for Trump. Turley is paid to shovel chum to the disciples, which includes attacking Judge Boasberg, a frequent target of MAGA media for whom Turley is employed. The SCOTUS unanimously held that these people were entitled to due process–notice and an opportunity to challenge their arrest–before being deported. So, what Trump did was wrong–the venue details are far less important, but Turley plays them up because he uses that to attack Judge Boasberg Turley doesn’t mention the fact that these people were just grabbed up and taken away, with no notice to their families or any attorney as to where they were being taken, much less any chance to file a writ of habeas corpus. That conduct is deliberate and Turley’s glossing over this inconvenient fact is also deliberate.
Rabble rabble rabble!
Gigenius, LOSING then and LOSING now.
Gigenius, when do actual Americans receive reparations for your unconstitutional “affirmative action” free ride?
Ah yes, the advantages of living in a “make-believe” world. You can simply revise history and reality to fit how your “feelings” are on any given day …… it’s like magic.
Gigi, the question is why wasn’t this a 9-0 decision.
On multiple accounts the majority is correct.
The requirements for TRO’s and preliminary injunctions were not met.
These cases are Habeaus cases. DC courts do not have jurisdiction.
The APA is a stopgap measure to be used when ones rights are violated AND congress has provided no other lawful means to challenge that.
SCOTUS did NOT decide that Trump won his AEA claim, he decided that Trump is LIKELY to win.
Plantiffs can still litigate that – but not under the APA, and not in the jurisdiction of their choice.
Before SCOTUS ruled there was a TX judge – and Obama apointee with an actual Habeuas case that has gone fill Xinis/Boasberg.
This decision does not effect that case.
Left wing nuts can still look for left wing nut judges in TX.
We do not decide supreme court cases nor constitutional rights based on public sentiment – something that the left never really understood.
But if we did – these cases would all be dead bang losers.
Very few people are unhappy that TdA and MS3 members are inprison in El Salvador.
SCOTUS correctly decided that they are entitled to due process, but that the plantiffs and the courts are not allowed to make up law and procedure to rig the outcome.
The due process is NOT the same as what is required for a criminal conviction.
It appears that Boasberg has not gotten the message and is looking to go for round two.
Filing a Habeaus petition is not blocked by deportation. That part of SCOTUS’s decison is practicle, but NOT correct.
Those in El Salvador can file Habeaus claims.
The FACT that Venezeuala is now accepting TdA members means there is valid habeus claim to transfer them from El Salvador to Venezeula.
To be clear that MIGHT not be a winning Habeaus claim. Trump can argue that so long as Valenzuela is engaged in sponsoring a predatory incursion, the administration need not return TdA to Venezeula.
But the claim can be made, and it might win.
Those of you on the left do not seem to grasp this is NOT a political game.
on Nov. 5 2024 those of you on the left LOST on the politics.
The legal battles here are supposed to be about law and constitution.
Not about prefered policies. That question has been answered.
We can fight over how easy or hard it shoudl be to deport MS13 and TdA members – but there is ZERO debate they are getting deported.
We can fight over how easy or hard it is to cut federal spending – but federal spending is getting cut.
We can fight over how easier or hard it is to RIF govenrment employees – but governemtn employees will eventually be RIF’d.
The current policies of the US govenrment were determined on Nov 5, 2024.
The left can fight in court – but only for due process and the protect peoples constitutional rights.
Not to get the courts to change govenrment policies.
I was reading this thing about the Supreme Court supposedly handing the Trump Administration this big win on deporting gang members under the Alien Enemies Act from 1798, and it sounds weird. On the surface, it’s being sold as this “clean” legal victory. Five justices say, “Texas is the only place this case should’ve been heard, not Washington, D.C., where the original judge was.” Case closed, right? But the more you dig into it, the more it starts to feel like something’s off.
This thing is it’s from the 18th century, back when people were still getting around on horses. It’s designed for wartime situations and it only applies to foreign nationals from countries we’re at war with. Now fast-forward to 2025: are we at war with Venezuela? No. Are gang members the same thing as enemy combatants? Hell no. So using this law to fast-track deportations of suspected gang members just feels like a massive reach. Like, you’re taking a law meant for spies in the Revolutionary War and applying it to modern immigration enforcement? That’s some real legal jiu-jitsu.
Turley tries to make it sound shady, like the people fighting the deportations just went to a friendly judge on purpose. But here’s the thing: if you’re challenging a federal policy, not just your specific detention, D.C. is exactly where you’d go. That’s where the agencies are. That’s where the policies come from. So, yeah, maybe they picked a court that has ruled on this kind of thing before. But that’s not illegal it’s smart. That’s like saying your lawyer should pick a random judge instead of one who’s actually ruled on similar stuff. Come on.
They act like the people filing the case were flip-flopping, like they couldn’t decide if it was about habeas corpus or about challenging the system under the Administrative Procedure Act. But here’s the truth: those things often go together. In immigration law, people file both kinds of claims all the time. It’s not shady, it’s how the system works. Saying otherwise is just trying to make the lawyers look sketchy when they’re literally doing what the law allows.
Turley acts like the Court gave both sides a win because they affirmed “due process.” But let’s be honest, if the only way you can challenge your deportation is by filing a habeas petition in Texas, from a detention center, probably with no lawyer… good luck. That’s like saying, “Sure, you can fight Mike Tyson. But you have to do it underwater. With handcuffs.” Technically, you’ve got a shot. But come on, it’s not a fair one.
One of the more serious things in the dissent came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She basically said, “This is starting to look like Korematsu again,” the Supreme Court’s infamous decision during World War II that allowed Japanese internment. Now, people love to say, “Oh, that’s just overreacting.” But is it? When you start using old wartime laws to deport people based on who they’re affiliated with or where they’re from… that’s dangerous territory. And brushing that off like it’s just political noise? That’s reckless.
Barrett only agreed with parts of the dissent, which tells you even she thought some of this was shaky. So it’s not like this was some unified, rock-solid decision. It’s messy. It’s legally weird. And it leaves a lot open to interpretation. Of course the Trumptards are calling her a whore. They barely have two brain cells to stick to the issue at hand.
I’m not saying there aren’t dangerous people in gangs. There are. But if we start stretching 200-year-old laws to go after them, and doing it in ways that basically sidestep fair process? That’s when we start sliding into scary territory. We’ve seen what happens when the courts just go with whatever the executive branch wants, especially when it’s under the excuse of “national security” or “public safety.” And if you think that can’t happen again you haven’t been paying attention.
So yeah, maybe this looks like a legal win. But morally, historically? It feels like we just took a step backward.
You wouldn’t need to write that long essay if the libtards didn’t flood our country with gang scum! Let’s go Trumpo.
ATS
The argument that the law or constitution does not apply because there were horses then has NEVER been valid.
The AEA is not about revolutionary war spies. It was passed AFTER the revolution, and before the war of 1812.
There is nothing that is specific to the period about the law.
The arguement that policy questions are decided by courts in DC is EXACTLY what is wrong with these cases.
Policy is NOT decided by the courts AT ALL. Their jurisdiction is limited to the law and constitution.
They do not get to decide if the use of the AEA is a good idea or a bad one, only if it is constitutional or lawful.
Further your misunderstanding of Venue would put all cases challenging the executive in DC.
That is not and never has been how our legal system works.
Jurisdiction is often complex – but it does NOT default to DC.
In many instances – such as immigration and contract disputes jurisdiction was specified by Congress in the law – the constitution empowers Congress to define the jurisdiction of the courts.
If your concept of Venue or jurisdiction was correct more than half all federal judges would have to serve in DC.
I would further note that SCOTUS did NOT actually decide most of these cases. They merely decided that they needed to be tried in the appropriate court under the approriate laws, and using the appropriate legal standards.
What these decisions said was the Courts can NOT grant themselves jurisdiction. They can not manufacture irrepairable harm out of thin air, and the default in most instances is a rebutable presumption that the government will prevail.
They dealt a several blow to judge shopping. They dealt a blow to the use of TRO’s and preliminary injunctions to thwart administrion policies before a full hearing on the facts and the law.
“They do not get to decide if the use of the AEA is a good idea or a bad one, only if it is constitutional or lawful.”
They do. SCOTUS just asserted that the AEA is subject to judicial review. Plaintiffs do get to challlenge the use of the AEA to designate them as “invaders” because they are allegedly members of a gang.
“The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “ ‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163−164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.”
The government agrees TdA members are subject to removal get judicial review, but they were were using the AEA to deny them judicial review. The dissent noted that the government sought to removed and move those detained as quickly as possible before a they could hire a lawyer or any court could weigh in. That was by design not an “accident”.
“They dealt a several blow to judge shopping. They dealt a blow to the use of TRO’s and preliminary injunctions to thwart administrion policies before a full hearing on the facts and the law.”
Republicans LOVE judge shopping. Remember the lone federal judge Kacsmaryk? The one imposing nationwide injunctions and why republican AG’s prefer to file cases in his district? Republicans apperently weren’t concerned about judge shopping or national injunctions. They were used to thwart administration policies just the same. Right?
The government moves datainees to avoid court districts where they are less likely to succeed. That is also “judge shopping”. That’s why the DOJ demands judges transfer cases to districts where they will get a favorable outcome. Like in the very conservative souther district of Texas and Louisiana. SCOTUS is enabling the government’s lawless actions and their own “judge shopping”.
George apparently you can not read.
I absolutely agree that SCOTUS did not completely cut of Judicial review of the AEA.
Ludecke,has alreasettled the question of whether the AEA is consitutional on its face.
SCOTUS allowed TWO challenges to continue IN TEXAS, in a Habeaus petition.
The first is whether the body that is being deported is the person ordered to be deported.
i.e. is the person being deported a TdA member – and the burder of proof in a Habeaus proceding is on the plantiff.
I would note that DOJ repeatedly argued that all these people have the right to a Habeaus hearing – including those currently in El Salvador.
The argument is that is ALL they have a right to.
The second is that SCOTUS has allowed an AS APPLIED challenge to Trump’s use of the AEA.
At the same time SCOTUS has explicitly stated that Trump will likely win that and therefore lower courts are barred from issuing TRO’s or preliminary injunctions against the administration until after the as applied challange has been fought through the courts and SCOTUS has gotten the final world.
None of this shoudl be surprising.
The case DOJ brought to SCOTUS was a request for a stay on a TRO, and restoration of proper jurisdiction.
They did NOT ask SCOTUS to decide the entire case on the merits. That would be improper. Before SCOTUS can decide the case on the merits all appropriate lower court get to hold hearings, gather facts and plead the law.
That is how our legal system works.
Those that ICE alleges are TdA members will get to try to prove they are not, and if they can not – they will be deported.
TdA members are also fre to make an as applied claim that Trump is not constitutionally following the AEA.
SCOTUS asserted that the ODDS are Trump will win, therefore lower courts can not grant more TRO’s and preliminary injunctions,
but they can hear THAT narrow case. In the appropriate venue with the correct jurisdiction.
With near certainty Trump will win most of these cases but will lose a few – there is already a left wing nut judge in TX on a Habeaus case way out over his skis. The left will get a few temporay wins – before a year or two from now SCOTUS with near certainty quashes all of this.
But SCOTUS tries hard not to reach decisions it does not have to and not until lower courts have had lots of oportunity to speak first.
There will be no APA claim against the deportation or the AEA or the spending cuts or the reductions in force.
The left will have to fight those cases using actual law in the correct courts with proper jurisdiction./
“ I would note that DOJ repeatedly argued that all these people have the right to a Habeaus hearing – including those currently in El Salvador.
But they are deliberately bypassing those rights. By moving them as fast as they can. Before any court or deportees has a chance to weight in.
Anonymous, here’s the kicker, plaintiffs are NOT contesting the detention. They are not arguing against the detention. They are, like you said, arguing against the justification of using the AEA and the subequent denial of due process by the government when they are deliberately rushing as quickly as possible moving detainees and deporting them before anyone, including the courts have a chance to weigh in. That is by design.
SCOTUS slowed that process down a bit by asserting that the government HAS to give notice and detainees HAVE the right to challenge the government’s assertions that they are gang members. They already admitted to making a serious mistake, and while they knew it they still proceeded to deport one individual who was here legally.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is muddled and obviously rushed. In essence it was sloppy and the dissenters pointed this out. They should have addressed the legality of using the AEA to deport illegal immigrants who are not even invaders or because we have declared war on Venezuela.
They dont have to be invaders or a declared war, numbnuts.
You’ e been told this 20 times.
They don’t meet the definition of invaders as used in the AEA. To use the AEA there must be evidence that they are what the government claims they are and that’s why they are now going to court in Texas.
So, the admin declaring an invasion at the border doesn’t declare those crossing, not at ports of entry, as invaders?
Please read the AEA. it has been posted here many times.
You keep talking out of your a$$.
The requirements to invoke the AEA are a foreign govenrment engaged in hostile actions against the US.
No formal declaration of war is necescary. If that condition is met ANYONE fromt hat foreign country over the age of 14 can be deported with nothing more than a Habeaus hearing.
Trump limited his application of the AEA to TdA members – he did not have to.
The hostile act by a foreign power was The Maduro government conspiring with TdA to cause disruption in the US.
Do you beleive that if a foreign power sends people illegally to the US for the purpose of disrupting this country that the US can not deport them ?
Regardless this like all YOU left wing nut fights is a stupid fight.
The use of the AEA is for two reasons –
to expedite the removal of TdA members
To address the fact that Venezuela refused to accept them.
If we could do a DNA test on suspected TdA members that was always correct – they would get deported with virually no court review.
TdA members are not here legally and have no right to be here.
What is the purpose of due process ? It exists to reduce the odds that the govenrment makes a consequential error in its actions.
It is not to eliminate the possibility of error – that is not possible.
Due process is not a weapon to prevent deportation. It exists solely to reduce the frequency with which government errs.
The standard of due process required is proportionate tot he harm of an error.
If a US citizen is deported to a foreign country – that is an error, and that has occured in the past.
But it is not a great harm. Even after being deported that person can still get their birth certificate, passport and return to the US,
And then they can file for damages.
Even US citizens facing accidental deportation do NOT face the same due process requirements as someone facing capital punishment.
Due process does not exist to stop deportations.
TdA members are going to be deported. The only question is how quickly.
Several are contesting detention.
Regardless those being deported under the AEA can only make a Habeus claim.
“They are, like you said, arguing against the justification of using the AEA and the subequent denial of due process by the government when they are deliberately rushing as quickly as possible moving detainees and deporting them before anyone, including the courts have a chance to weigh in. That is by design.”
They can argue whatever they want. The only thing that will prevent them from being deported is establishing they are NOT TdA members.
They can challenge the AEA – but SCOTUS just noted that the presumption is that it is constitutional. That is not going to delay deportation.
Yes, the use of the AEA is to speed things up.
You keep getting confused about “due process” – the due process they are entitled to in an AEA case is Habeaus. The burden is on them to prove they are NOT TdA. This is a speed bump, and not much of one.
“SCOTUS slowed that process down a bit by asserting that the government HAS to give notice and detainees HAVE the right to challenge the government’s assertions that they are gang members.”
Correct, DOJ was not arguing against that. DOJ has continuously asserted they are entitled to make a Habeus claim.
Many already have.
“They already admitted to making a serious mistake”
No they made a very minor error in a cases that is not an AEA case.
“while they knew it they still proceeded to deport one individual who was here legally.”
Nope, Garcia was still not here legally. He was ALWAYS here illegally. While he was granted TPS status his deportation was delayed – that is all.
George the court documents on all of this are readily available. You have been full of schiff on this from the start,.
And like a typical left wing nut you seem to think you can pretend away facts you do not like.
“The Supreme Court’s reasoning is muddled and obviously rushed. In essence it was sloppy”
ROFL
The reasoning is trivial:
The jurisidiction for Almost everything related to immigration rests first with the Article II Immigration courts. If a deportee wishes to appeal further THEN and only then can they appeal to the District court where they currently reside.
The APA does not apply so long as there is any other law that provides a remedy
The APA was not intended as a means to relitigate claims that you either lost or would likely lose in the correct courts.
TRO’s require both irreparable harm and a likelyhood of prevailing – neither of which are present in these cases.
The AEA is constitutional, it is likely constitutional as Trump applied it, but the ONLY non-habeaus claim that can be litigated is an as applied challenge to Trump’s application of the AEA and you can not get a TRO or preliminary injuncion on that.
Due process for immigration cases is not the same as due process for criminal cases.
Nor is Due process for an AEA case the same as Due process for the deportation of illegal alein alleged to be a criminal, and not the same as deportation of an illegal alien that is a criminal.
Due process is not a requirement to prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt in all contexts.,
The standard of due process for someone in the US illegally to be deported to their HOME, is extremely low. Because there are no rights being violated.
All the above is long established law.
“The dissenters pointed this out.” The dissent is a muddled mess
“They should have addressed the legality of using the AEA to deport illegal immigrants who are not even invaders or because we have declared war on Venezuela.”
No they should not. That case is not properly before them. It will only be when and if there is an as applied challenge that makes it to the Supreme court.
SCOTUS was not asked and would not have properly ruled on the validity of Trump’s use of the AEA beyond the narrow way that they did – concluding that Trump was LIKELY to prevail. That was all they needed to do to invalidate the TRO’s
SCOTUS is not normally a trial court. They are an appeals court – they require a record to be built in lower courts.
This was an application for a Stay of the TRO. That was all the court was asked to decide.
If you’re not concerned about legality which I can see by your “Its where the government is” argument, but rather moral and historical continuity then where were you when the last administration was flying border runners all over the country knowing full well their claims were bogus? Yeah, it’s a moral response to an immoral act from the beginning by both the migrants and the last administration.
Professor Turley writes, “The decision not only overturned Boasberg’s order but also declared the District of Columbia an inappropriate venue for the case. That is a considerable victory for the Trump Administration and validates its long-standing position in the case.”
Not a lawyer, but it seems to my unschooled mind that the validity of universal injunctions remains untouched, and it’s not clear to me that venue shopping has been shut down except in these rarefied circumstances. If so, the Court has signaled they will rule narrowly on such questions.
I guess that means lawyer up.
There have been several cases decided on an emergency basis by the Supreme court in the past few days almost all entirely on briefs.
These decisions do NOT attempt to address every legal claim made by either the administration or the plantiffs.
They just seek to end the chaos. Mostly by getting cases to the correct venue.
Almost all of these cases merely restate that releif under the APA does not apply if any other law provides remedy.
That severely restricts the judge shopping.
They decided that cases about contracts of money must go to the specific Federal court setup to handle those cases.
They decided that Immigration cases go through the immigration courts, and only then to the federal court in the jurisdiction in which the illegal immigrant is detained.
Those decisions are appropriate at this stage of these legal challenges.
In addition they decided that Trump’s use of the AEA is likely valid.
I would note the Venue decisions are “final”, but other decisions like the validity of Trump’s application of the AEA merely invalidate TRO’s because the court determined Trump is LIKELY to prevail.
Some of the plantif’s claims in these cases may still end up before the Supreme court in a few years.
They affirmed that even illegal immigrats are entitled to Due Process. At the same time they made clear that immigration courts can handle that and that Due Process for deportation is NOT full criminal trial due process.
Thanks, John. Sounds like lawyer up, but I’m glad the courts are not foot dragging. I never expected that this would be easy.
@Diogenes
Me either, after all of the damage that has been done. We are allowed to deport people, period. This should not even be a conversation, and it wouldn’t have been, even on the left, just ten short years ago. That we have to go to these lengths now is absolutely preposterous. TDS is a bona fide mental illness, and it simply boggles the mind. We seem to have had a societal psychotic break. It is pure madness.
Yep
“In addition they decided that Trump’s use of the AEA is likely valid.”
They said no such thing. They didn’t discuss any of that. All they did was rule on jurisdiction. The validity of using the AEA still has not been litigated.
Immigration courts are controlled by the DHS. Immigration courts are flooded with thousands of cases and the likelyhood of a hearing will be years. This is why detainees have Habeas on their side and that’s why they are going to now go to the southern district of Texas where they can challenge the government’s use of the AEA and their designation as ‘gang members’ by the government.
Lawyer up, George.
SCOTUS did not address nationwide injunctions.
They did address TRO’s and Preliminary injunctions granted without sufficient foundation.
They just kicked out two of the three leggs of the stool that the left has been using to through sand in the gears.
They made it clear that the Courts can not use the APA to game venue.
They have been pretty strongly saying that courts should quit using the APA where the APA does not apply.
And the APA does not apply when any other means of challenging governemnt exists – such as Habeaus or federal contracts court.
Separately they made it clear that the standard for a TRO or preliminary injunction is ireparable harm AND likelyhood to prevail – neither of which are present in most of these cases.
You can not grant a nationwide TRO if you do not have jurisdiction.
You can not grant a nationwide TRO if you can not meet the legal standard for irreparable harm and likelyhood of prevailing.
SCOTUS did NOT address a number of other issues. It was not asked to.
Further this was an application for a stay – not a full review of the case
“ Far from acting “fairly” as to the controversy in District Court, the Government has largely ignored its obligations to the rule of law. From the start, the Government sought to avoid judicial review, “hustl[ing] people onto those planes” without notice or public Proclamation apparently “in the hopes of evading an injunction or perhaps preventing them from requesting the habeas hearing to which the Government now acknowledges they are entitled.”
The dissent understands the issue much better than the majority. Those in the majority are enabling the government’s dishonesty and deliberate flouting of the law.
“ The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this.”
Rabble rabble!
Would you rather someone in Texas control what you can do, george? This is the equivalent of you wanting to bang your mistress in Nevada, but a Karen in Massachusetts can just say “nope!” and stop you.
Just like that scenario, a state-level judge is trying to govern how the entire country works, overriding not just the Article 2 Presidential powers, but also the Article 3 and 4 (might be off on the specific numbers) Congress and Federal Judiciary powers. Should that be allowed, Georgie-poo?
George – as Turley correctly pointed out – much of the Dissent is NOT at odds with the majority.
The real question is why are these decisions not 9-0.
One of the problems with YOUR analysis and that of the dissent is that these desitions are NOT final (except as to jurtisdiction, and due process).
SCOTUS did not throw out any of these cases. It moved them to the correct jurisdiction.
Contracts and money claims go to the DC court of contracts and claims as law passed by congress requires.
This is still a federal court. The plantiffs will still get their day in court. But they no longer get to hand pick their judge, and they are not going to get stupid TRO’s. They will get to make their case in the correct court and they will get payment and damages if they win.
Immigration claims go to immigration courts, and then to Article III courts for Habeaus challenges.
SCOTUS did NOT make a final determination on Trump’s use of the AEA, only requiring that the courts can not reject it out of hand that it must be litigated fully before a decision is made, and that the burden of proof is with the plantifs.
These decisions are excellent decisions – they are limited in scope, they restore the rule of law.
Those of you have been ranting about Due Process, the majority decision requires the appropriate due process for illegal immigrants.
But this whole series of decisions REQUIRES lower courts to follow the rules of judicial procedure, and jurisdiction.
The rule of law is not a one way street. Plantiffs and courts must follow the law too.
John Say,
Thank you for that analysis. Well said and well put.
The dissent is not at odds with the majority with respect to Judicial Review. That’s it.
It’s not 9-0 because clealry the court, as the dissent pointed out, rushed through the decision and didn’t debate the facts of the case. Even justice Barrett concurred with that point. They also pointed out glaring inconsistencies that the majority simply chose to ignore and the fact that the Trump administration uses the slow pace of the courts to its advantage by moving and deporting people before they have any court has a chance to weight in. That’s why they move people so fast and when a court order is issued it’s too late. That is by design and the dissent is saying the majority is being essentialy legally obtuse in that regard.
“One of the problems with YOUR analysis and that of the dissent is that these desitions are NOT final (except as to jurtisdiction, and due process).”
That’s not the argument that I or the dissent are making. What is being said is that the government is rushing these deportations as a means to AVOID court intervention and giving detainees access to a lawyer. They were doing that while Boesberg was presiding over the case. Regardless of where the case should have been held the plaintiffs required immediate actions by A court. Remember, lawyers and family members had no idea where they were sent. That is also by design. It denies lawyers the ability to file motions in the appropriate court because they don’t know where they are held until it’s too late.
That is the point the dissent is making.
The majority is saying long after the fact after the D.C. court at the very least stopped further deportation proceedings, before the government took them out of the country and any motion in the correct court would be pointless.
Now that SCOTUS essentially forced the Trump administration to acknowledge that the immigrants in question cannot be summarily deported without a proper hearing and notice. The Trump administration was avoidng that by invoking the AEA without giving any of the detainees a chance to challenge their status as gang members.
“Those of you have been ranting about Due Process, the majority decision requires the appropriate due process for illegal immigrants.”
The Trump administration was NOT granting them due process. That’s the point. ‘We’ have been ‘ranting’ about it while you have been ignoring that fact until SCOTUS clearly pointed it out and only then did you admit that they indeed require due process. Trump as denying them that by summarily deporting them by using the AEA. They were flouting the rule of law. You talk about the rule of law while the Trump administration openly flouts it and disobeys court orders.
@George
You sure seem to have a lot of time to troll the rest of us. Nice pension/Sorosbucks/trust fund you’ve got there, whitey George. Cry us a river. You are certainly free to share; the rest of us do not have to, and don’t listen to, any of your little grievance peeps. I honestly *don’t* think the Kremlin is feeding you talking points; no, that is the Western world that does not have our Constitution speaking, and it’s overlords. Paid, not paid: you are a troll and an idiot.
“The dissent understands the issue much better than the majority. Those in the majority are enabling the government’s dishonesty and deliberate flouting of the law.”
What is your IQ?
I have it at about 120.
NO ONE GIVES A FVCK about your dumb ass opinion on this or any other matter.
The dissent knows what is going on and the point out exactly what I was saying,
“ The Government may well prefer to defend against “300 or more individual habeas petitions” than face this class APA case in Washington, D. C. Ibid. That is especially so because the Government can transfer detainees to particular locations in an attempt to secure a more hospitable judicial forum.”
Plus they argue that the requirement that each plaintiff contest it’s own habeas motions poses a problem because plaintiffs do not know if the will be secretly moved again and even be allowed the opportunity to seek an attorney. It’s all by design. To stymie their due process rights by denying them the infromation they need to proceed with a defense and constantly moving them to avoid more favorable jurisdictions.
“ Proclamation against all Venezuelan nationals in immigration detention, detainees scattered across the country must each obtain counsel and file habeas petitions on their own accord, all without knowing whether they will remain in detention where they were arrested or be secretly transferred to an alternative location. Cf. Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U. S. 815, 860 (1999) (“One great advantage of class action treatment . . . is the opportunity to save the enormous transaction costs of piecemeal litigation”).
That requirement may have life or death consequences. Individuals who are unable to secure counsel, or who cannot timely appeal an adverse judgment rendered by a habeas court, face the prospect of removal directly into the perilous conditions of El Salvador’s CECOT, where detainees suffer egregious human rights abuses. See supra, at 7–8. Anyone the Government mistakenly deports in its piecemeal and rushed implementation of the challenged Proclamation will face the same grave risks.”
They are basically saying the majority is enabling the government’s lawless actions by not doing their due diligence in considering these cases more thoroughly.
When the question of the legality of using the AEA does come before the court, it can be assured that they will take their sweet time in deciding while detainees remain in detention or are being actively deported without the hearing they are entitled to.
Or they can just get the fvck out of where they dont belong.
“The dissent knows what is going on and the point out exactly what I was saying,”
It is not the role of the courts – not SCOTUS not the lower courts to “know what is going on” – motives are NOT part of this process – not the motives of the plantifs, not the motives of the administration.
Every claim you make about the motives of the administraiton is also true of those of the plantiffs.
While out in public we tend to dwell on them. They are NOT supposed to be relevant to the courts.
Plantiffs and defendants are EXPECTED to try to use the law – including jurisdiction and venue to their advantage.
The Courts are supposed to correctly evaluate whether they have jurisdiction before taking a case.
Venue and jurisdiction are complicated. Often -as in these cases they are determine BY LAW – Congress decided where contract disputes with the government are heard. Congress decided where immigration cases are heard. The courts are REQUIRED to follow the law.
“ The Government may well prefer to defend against “300 or more individual habeas petitions” than face this class APA case in Washington, D. C. Ibid. That is especially so because the Government can transfer detainees to particular locations in an attempt to secure a more hospitable judicial forum.”
While less significant than you think – there is a federal judge in TX right now intefering with a Trump deportation in a Habeaus case.
While he too is well out over his skis – atleast he has jurisdiction and is hearing the correct claim.
I would further note that Habeaus can be used to require or oppose a transfer in detention. The administration can detain deportees in TX and the deportee can file a Habeaus claim to be transfered to Maryland.
“Plus they argue that the requirement that each plaintiff contest it’s own habeas motions poses a problem because plaintiffs do not know if the will be secretly moved again and even be allowed the opportunity to seek an attorney. It’s all by design. To stymie their due process rights by denying them the infromation they need to proceed with a defense and constantly moving them to avoid more favorable jurisdictions.”
This is nonsense. Once a Habeaus claim is filed change in detention is blocked. The jurisdiction of the court in which the person was detained at the moment of filing is set. The administration can not proceed with deportation or move the detainee without permission of the court.
Habeaus is ALWAYS an individual claim – there can be no such thing as a class action Habeaus claim.
“ Proclamation against all Venezuelan nationals in immigration detention, detainees scattered across the country must each obtain counsel and file habeas petitions on their own accord, all without knowing whether they will remain in detention where they were arrested or be secretly transferred to an alternative location. Cf. Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U. S. 815, 860 (1999) (“One great advantage of class action treatment . . . is the opportunity to save the enormous transaction costs of piecemeal litigation”).”
Habeaus is by definition INDIVIDUAL. You can not have a class action Habeaus claim. It is a logical impossibility.
Habeus is NOT a challenge to the law, it is a challenge to the applicability of the law to YOU specifically.
As an example Garcia is now claiming that he is NOT a MS13 leader. That is an individualized determination.
“That requirement may have life or death consequences. Individuals who are unable to secure counsel, or who cannot timely appeal an adverse judgment rendered by a habeas court, face the prospect of removal directly into the perilous conditions of El Salvador’s CECOT, where detainees suffer egregious human rights abuses. See supra, at 7–8. Anyone the Government mistakenly deports in its piecemeal and rushed implementation of the challenged Proclamation will face the same grave risks.”
There are federal public defenders – they are excellent. These people will have no problems getting representation. Not to mention that Sorros and the ACLU are pouring millions into these cases. The Trump administration is facing some of the best lawyers in the country on this issue.
Turley notes that Roberts in the majority pokes the dissent specifically because the order requires the administration to provide the oportunity for a Habeaus challenge.
With respect to the conditions in this prison in El Salvador – all these TdA members have an easy choice – self deport to Venezeuala.
It is unlikely there will be more deportations to El Salvador. as a result of the first set Venezeualla has once again agreed to accept TdA members.
These people were sent to El Salvador because deportation to Venezeualla was not possible.
Separately what happens to El Salvadorans deported to El Salvador is mostly not the US’s business.
“They are basically saying the majority is enabling the government’s lawless actions by not doing their due diligence in considering these cases more thoroughly.”
Nope, the majority specifically required that all deportees under the AEA had to have an oportunity to file a Habeaus claim.
Reading is aparently not a skill you or the minority possess.
“When the question of the legality of using the AEA does come before the court, it can be assured that they will take their sweet time in deciding while detainees remain in detention or are being actively deported without the hearing they are entitled to.”
The hearing they are entitled to is a Habeaus hearing. SCOTUS has already required that – learn to read.
Turley and the majority in the ruling ingore the reason why Boesberg ended up with his case and why it was filed in his court. A point that the dissent clearly pointed out.
ICE or even DHS kept the whereabouts of the detainees secret upon detention and arrest. Lawyers are left in the dark and have zero information on the location and when detainees are moved. They noted that the administration as correctly pointed out by judge Boesberg is deliberately moving detainees and deporting them before any court has a chance to weight in. It denies detainees even the basic right to challenge their detention or the government’s claims that they are gang members. The majority did recognize this at a minimum. They also recognized and asserted that even illegal immigrants or gang members are entitled to due process and summary deportations without that are still illegal. That’s why they end up with “administrative errors.” Like sending someone who was here legally and under court order not to be deported to El Salvador by “mistake”. It wasn’t a mistake. It was by design and tht is what judge Boesberg learned.
Now that the cases must be lititgated in Texas, it’s more likely that Trump judges will always side with the government. That’s why any detained immigrants are immediately sent to Texas or Louisana. Because they know there are friendly judges there and they will always rule in favor or Trump.
As illegal alien criminals they have few rights and do not fall under the same rights as US Citizens’ constitutional protections. Please, please go educate yourself, initially with reading and understanding the rights Citizens have under it. It’s like finding counterfeit money, they study the real bills, not chase after all the ways changes can be made.
Much like what liberals are confusing, and they attempt to ascribe rights of contrived groups, such as “trans-demented” believers and supporters when there is nothing in the Constitution about sex determining anyone’s rights: let alone those who can’t figure out their sex by looking between their legs. And then, feign they aren’t what is decided science.
I guess you didn’t read the SCOTUS opinion or Turley’s blog post? They affirmed that they should be afforded some Due Process protections. They received none.
As opposed to Democrats who will continue to decide cases in opposition to the Trump admin for purely political reasons. Lets lay blame where it belongs here: the Biden administration flooded the country with millions of illegal aliens including a not insignificant number of extremely dangerous gangsters. Biden’s policies led to an epidemic of child trafficking, female trafficking and drug trafficking at a scale far beyond the already terrible numbers the nation experienced pre 2021. This left a huge mess for Trump to clean up yet Democrats insist these issues can only be fairly adjudicated by Democrat-appointed judges in highly politicized Dem circuits which are, by some ordained order of the universe, more likely to handle these cases “according to the law” which really means according to the whims of Biden-admin supporting Democrats.
The mess was made by the Biden administration and cleaning it up cannot be left to hyper-politicized Democrats who will decide against Trump DOJ cases simply because that is what they now do. It was not Trump who turned our judicial system into a lawfare circus. As the judiciary continues to lose legitimacy Democrats will insist the fault is with Trump while they continue their anti-Trump jihad in an apparently never-ending spiral of political hit-jobs masquerading as justice. Lawfare is ruining the judiciary in the eyes of the public and at the end of this road Dems are sure the blame will be laid at Trumps feet and once again the people, who are not nearly as foolish as Democrats suppose, see the game you are playing and have lost all patience long ago. Yet Democrats, ensconced in their political bubble, just keep digging. So be it.
George: thanks. Gee, how inconvenient for MAGA media, which includes Turley, that loves to harp on the claim that “the Left” engages in forum shopping. We just don’t allow the government here to grab people up, spirit them away and deport them. Who’s to say they’ll stop at alleged “gang members”, and where’s the proof that these people were “gang members” or committed any crimes? At least one of them was a gay makeup artist who had formally sought asylum. From “CBS News”:
“Andry Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist who came to the United States last year in search of asylum, is one of 238 Venezuelan migrants who were flown from the U.S. to a maximum security prison in El Salvador three weeks ago.
President Trump, who campaigned on eradicating the Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua, brokered a deal with El Salvador’s president that allows the U.S. to send deportees to the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT.
The Trump administration used the Alien Enemies Act, a law not invoked since World War II, to send many of the Venezuelans there, claiming they were all terrorists and violent gang members.
Lawyers and family members of the Venezuelan migrants told 60 Minutes they’ve had no contact with the men since they arrived in El Salvador.
“Our client, who was in the middle of seeking asylum, just disappeared. One day he was there, and the next day we’re supposed to have court, and he wasn’t brought to court,” Lindsay Toczylowski, Hernandez Romero’s lawyer, said.”
And, these people were sent to one of the world’s most-notorious prisons–why–other than to stoke fear?
How inconvenient for Gigi and George.
First they screech that the Supreme Court will uphold this nonsense, then when they dont, well, they’re just wrong.
I cant imagine why these two geniuses arent supreme court justices.
Gigi,
Plantiffs and defendants are always free to try to engage in forum shopping.
I expect both the left and the right to attempt to forum shop when they file cases.
We can publicly rant about that. But we can not stop it.
Attorney’s are ALWAYS expected to seek the best for their clients.
And they should succeed – when they get the law right.
The problem here is with the COURTS.
The courts are supposed to follow the law – congress determines the rules that establish venue and jurisdiction.
Xinis did not follow them. Boasberg did not follow them.
“We just don’t allow the government here to grab people up, spirit them away and deport them. ”
If they are in the US legally and failed to show up for a deportation hearing that is exactly what we do.
“Who’s to say they’ll stop at alleged “gang members””
They wont. If you are in the US illegally eventually ICE may get to you.
But at current rates that could be a decade from now.
“where’s the proof that these people were “gang members””
In the findings of fact of Article II Immigration courts.
This claim that there is no proof is bogus.
The administration correctly refused to relitigate that determination. Garcia got to challenge that claim at his deportation hearing – he did and lost. He appealed and lost. He allowed his right to appeal to expire making the determination that he is an MS13 gang leader a FINAL finding of fact. Judge Xinis was NOT entitle to re-open the matter.
“committed any crimes?”
It is not required to convict you or a crime to deport you if you are heare illegally.
“At least one of them was a gay makeup artist who had formally sought asylum.”
ALEGGEDLY – he could have filed a Habeaus claim. He still can.
“From “CBS News”:“Andry Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist who came to the United States last year in search of asylum, is one of 238 Venezuelan migrants who were flown from the U.S. to a maximum security prison in El Salvador three weeks ago.”
CBS ROFL
“President Trump, who campaigned on eradicating the Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua, brokered a deal with El Salvador’s president that allows the U.S. to send deportees to the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT.”
Correct.
“The Trump administration used the Alien Enemies Act, a law not invoked since World War II, to send many of the Venezuelans there, claiming they were all terrorists and violent gang members.”
As SCOTUS established – they can request a Habaeus hearing to determin if they are members of TdA:
“Lawyers and family members of the Venezuelan migrants told 60 Minutes they’ve had no contact with the men since they arrived in El Salvador.”
They STILL can file Habeaus claims and atleast one has.
“Our client, who was in the middle of seeking asylum, just disappeared. One day he was there, and the next day we’re supposed to have court, and he wasn’t brought to court,” Lindsay Toczylowski, Hernandez Romero’s lawyer, said.””
So ? His client was NOT going to get assylum. There are about 45M illegal immigrants in the US. 11-20M of them fromt he last 4 years.
About 20,000 people get assylum each year.
To get Assylum, you MUST apply at a US embassy or consulate or Port of Entry. Once you enter the US illegally you are not by law allowed to ask for assylum – you you can ask for Temporary protective Status which is granted at the DISCRETION of the president.
It is NOT assylum, it is temporary and can be revoked without due process.
Their client is free to seek assylum, but that does not mean he will get it.
Nor does applying for assylum prevent the execution of a deportation order.
“And, these people were sent to one of the world’s most-notorious prisons–why–other than to stoke fear?”
That claim too is likely true – though irrelevant.
You are absolutely correct that Trump and ICE want illegal immigrants to chose NOT to live in fear and to self deport.
Presuming Trump’s economic agenda is successful – the US is going to be short of low and medium skilled workers.
Trump also talked during the campaign of 2-3M LEGAL immigrants per year.
Get the economy rolling. Reindustrialize the US and MORE legal immigrants will be NECESCARY.
Trump has REPEATEDLY posted – GO HOME, if you do so on your own you will STILL be able to apply for legal immigration.
You odds of getting it are low, but NOT non existant – espectially if you are skilled and not a criminal – most Venezeuallans are excellent candidates for future legal immigration.
But if you are caught in the US illegally you will NEVER be allowed to immigrate legally.
Separeately if you are a TdA member or MS13 member or any other criminal illegal – GO HOME – you will not end up in CECOT if you do.
friendly judges there and they will always rule in favor
or Trump.of the law“Turley and the majority in the ruling ingore the reason why Boesberg ended up with his case and why it was filed in his court. A point that the dissent clearly pointed out.”
The reason does not matter. Boasberg does not have jurisdiction. I would note there is a claim very similar to Boasbergs already occuring in TX, before an Obama appointed judge who is doing much the same as Boasberg – except that he has valid jurisdiction and the claim before him is a habeaus claim.
“ICE or even DHS kept the whereabouts of the detainees secret upon detention and arrest. Lawyers are left in the dark and have zero information on the location and when detainees are moved. They noted that the administration as correctly pointed out by judge Boesberg is deliberately moving detainees and deporting them before any court has a chance to weight in.”
This is mostly false. It is also irrelevant. Defendants or their attorney’s can file where they wee picked up, and DOJ that will freeze the case.
It will be transfered to where they are currently detained. They can not be transfered again without court permission, until the case is resolved.
“It denies detainees even the basic right to challenge their detention or the government’s claims that they are gang members. The majority did recognize this at a minimum.”
That has always been true – there have been about a dozen Habeaus challenges already made. More than half a dozen of these people were not deported because of Habeaus challenges. Those already deported are STILL entitled to file Habeaus challenges.
“They also recognized and asserted that even illegal immigrants or gang members are entitled to due process and summary deportations without that are still illegal.”
Correct, but for AEA cases that due process is limited to Habeaus – Where the deportee must prove they are not a TdA member.
There is slightly more due process for those not subject to the AEA – though if there is a Deportation order issued again you have little more than a Habeaus claim left.
One of the huge errors obvious in Judge Xinis’s spray of nonsense – is these are NOT criminal cases. People are being returned to their HOME country, not sent to h311. The govenrment is not required to prove these people committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
If there is a deportation order by a Article II judge the only due process they have left is Habeaus – “I am not the person you claim I am. ”
That is individualized.
At an actual deportation hearing – which all these people had – though most failed to show up at, they have broader due process rights,
At a deportation hearing the burden is on the government – but that burden is relatively low – establishing that it is more likely than not that you are not in the US legally.
There are a variety of factors that alter the level of due process. but it is NEVER the same as that required in a criminal proceeding.
Nor should it be.
These people are for the most part being sent home.
Even TdA members will be sent home – so long as Venezeualla accepts them.
“That’s why they end up with “administrative errors.” Like sending someone who was here legally”
Garcia was NOT EVER heare legally.
“under court order not to be deported to El Salvador by “mistake”. It wasn’t a mistake. It was by design and tht is what judge Boesberg learned.”
No Boasberg did not learn that, it actually clearly was an error as the Court order that allowed Garcia to stay expired a few days after he was deported and is no longer in effect. Further Rubio’s finding that El Salvador has destroyed the Roasrio “gang” that purportedly was a threat to Garcia made the court order meaningless. Further the origianl order was itself in error – while that is NOT appealable, neither is the Trump admin decision to rescind all such orders.
“Now that the cases must be lititgated in Texas, it’s more likely that Trump judges will always side with the government. That’s why any detained immigrants are immediately sent to Texas or Louisana. Because they know there are friendly judges there and they will always rule in favor or Trump.”
There are Obama and Biden appointed judges in TX. That is NOT the important part of this order, Teh important parts are:
The courts MUST ALSO FOLLOW THE LAW – Due Process, such as jurisidction and Venue,
The AEA and post deportation order due process is limited to Habeaus.
The big deal is SCOTUS has ended this nonsensical applications of the APA.
The APA does not apply if the law provided any other remedy.
That is established case law.
SCOTUS has reaffirmed that.
The Media, not wanting to focus on Boasberg’s loss after boasting of his commanding posture for several weeks, has now turned to focusing on how he might fashion contempt charges against Trump attorneys for non-compliant responses.
Perhaps, may I assume that ALL of Boastberg’s [sic] prior intimidating threats for contempt charges over his discovery demands for more information are void/thrown out as well, (and no need for state secrets defense) –as akin to void ab initio (in a non-contract-law way)?
Lin, it would seem that since the judge didn’t have jurisdiction, NOT A VENUE ISSUE, any acts resulting from the case being “void ab initio”, as you rightly put it, would render any further actions null and void also.
Maybe we could use one of the left’s favorite terms when trying to release criminals, the acts of contempt are null and void due to them being “fruits of the poisonous tree”.
hullbobby: please stop your MAGAt “we vs. the Left” BS. Even Rasmussen has Trump underwater in polling. And, you are not a lawyer, so stop repeating the blather you heard on MAGA media.
But Gigi, I am a lawyer. Are you?
HullBobby,
Oh! Gigi the loser is a nurse, an economist and a lawyer. What else we know is as long as she and her like minded leftist friends stay on the Democrat party, they will continue to lose. All the sane, normal, traditional and moderate Democrats want her and them off their side and out of their party. Bill Maher has been calling them stupid and crazy for years.
As a lawyer, hullbobby, should Alito generally be bound by a SCOTUS opinion that he drafted, especially when dealing with the emergency docket?
Check out Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam:
Respondent does not want anything like that. His claim is more reminiscent of the one we rejected in Munaf. In that case, American citizens held in U. S. custody in Iraq filed habeas petitions in an effort to block their transfer to Iraqi authorities for criminal prosecution. See 553 U. S., at 692. Rejecting this use of habeas, we noted that “[h]abeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention” and that what these individuals wanted was not “simple release” but an order requiring them to be brought to this country. Id., at 693, 697. Claims so far outside the “core” of habeas may not be pursued through habeas. See, e.g., Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U. S. 521, 535, n. 13 (2011). Like the habeas petitioners in Munaf, respondent does not want “simple release” but, ultimately, the opportunity to remain lawfully in the United States. That he seeks to stay in this country, while the habeas petitioners in Munaf asked to be brought here from Iraq, see post, at 19–20 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), is immaterial. In this case as in Munaf, the relief requested falls outside the scope of the writ as it was understood when the Constitution was adopted. See Castro, 835 F. 3d, at 450–451 (Hardiman, J., concurring dubitante) (“Petitioners here seek to alter their status in the United States in the hope of avoiding release to their homelands. That prayer for relief . . . dooms the merits of their Suspension Clause argument” (emphasis deleted)).
Alito in 2020 held that transfers were NOT CORE habeas relief because they aren’t a “simple release.”
As a lawyer, should Alito be bound by…. ALITO? If not, why would Alito not even attempt to distinguish this transfer from that transfer case? Instead, he borrows from Section 1983, which is NOT a transfer issue.
Underwater is what Gigi calls it when Trumps poll numbers are 20 points higher than bidens.
What does this have to do with the Droid attack on the Wookiees?
President Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States of America.
And you are not.
And your communist comrades are not.
The cold hard truth can be tough to swallow, but swallow you must.
LOSING!!!
Lin,
In previous (binding) Supreme Court cases, both Alito and Roberts have held that seeking a transfer is NOT a “core” habeas remedy.
On whether this type of relief is “core,” I’ll cede the floor to Justice Alito. Here’s his majority opinion in DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020), on whether the Suspension Clause permitted Congress to strip habeas power over expedited removal procedure: “Rejecting th[e] use of habeas [to bar transfers to foreign sovereigns], we noted that habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention and that what these individuals wanted was not simple release but an order requiring them to be brought to this country. Claims so far outside the core of habeas may not be pursued through habeas.” I’ll also borrow from Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court in Munaf v. Geren (2008): “[H]abeas is not appropriate [when claimants seek to preclude transfer to another sovereign so that they may face criminal charges]. Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release. But here the last thing petitioners want is simple release … .” Thuraissigiam and Munaf don’t mean that habeas claimants can never stop transfer orders, but those decisions extinguish DOJ’s argument that such remedies are “core” habeas relief
How Alito, Roberts and co, possibly ignore their own binding precedent?
LIn, the SCOTUS ruling doesn’t let the government off the hook for violating his court order. It’s still a violation and the government still has to answer for it.
Because for those actions which are separate from the case, are still very much in Boesberg’s control. The lawyers still face contempt of court charges for their conduct. They don’t get off that easy. Contempt of court charges are solely at the discretion of the court. Even if the case is dismissed.
George the genius. Please cite your reference.
Turley sure loves to leave out pertinent information.
“ Also troubling is this Court’s decision to vacate summarily the District Court’s order on the novel ground that an individual’s challenge to his removal under the Alien Enemies Act “fall[s] within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus” and must therefore be filed where the plaintiffs are detained. . . . This conclusion is dubious.”
He asks why it’s “dubious”. Well…he left out the reason why written just after he cut off the paragraph; here’s the complete statement.
“ Also troubling is this Court’s decision to vacate summarily the District Court’s order on the novel ground that an individual’s challenge to his removal under the Alien Enemies Act “fall[s] within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus” and must therefore be filed where the plaintiffs are detained. Ante, at 2. The Court reaches that conclusion without oral argument or the benefit of percolation in the lower courts, and with just a few days of deliberation based on barebones briefing.
This conclusion is dubious.”
It’s dubious because the court didn’t have oral arguments, and its decision was made in just a few days based on barebones briefings. That’s important because it shows that the majority didn’t want to dive into the details and could find itself limiting Trump further than the bare minimum.
The majority rushed it’s conclusion. They wanted to help Trump. Turley writes only when it’s certain Trump will succeed, never when he fails. Pretty much the opposite of what he did when Biden was president and it cleary shows Turley’s bias and disingeniousness in his columns.
George: If you think that your daily verbose and condescending contempt for Professor Turley’s commentary is convincing anyone of your superior views, we ain’t buyin’ what you is sellin. Perhaps you should try Bluesky or start your own blog?
Indeed, based on the SCOTUS opinion, is this your way to avoid an apology to us?–by discrediting SCOTUS as Trump sycophants? from lin.
Lin,
What a great response! Of course I did not bother to read the slow and dumb one’s comment. Just scroll past.
Lin, see above. How can the conclusion be anything other than Trump sycophants if they ignore their OWN PRECEDENT, which clearly precludes any conclusion that habeas is the sole remedy for a transfer?
Alito won’t even listen to … Alito!
Lin, apparenty a blog about free speech doesn’t seem to compute for you. Criticisim of Turley’s opinon is fair game. I’m sure agree.
I never said my views are superior or better. Pointing out flaws or inconsistencies in Professor Turley’s “analysis” is still fair game. I’m not selling anything. I’m just putting in my two cents like everyone here.
Turley and many here discredit courts ALL the time. They discredit “Biden” courts, “Obama” courts, “Clinton” courts, etc. All fair game, right? So why can’t SCOTUS be subject to the same?
No need for an apology. Knowing that many here will never read the whole ruling and rely in Turley’s skewed “analysis” of the ruling is all they need is what makes Turley “credible” in their view, including you. I’m not at all surprised.
The court has done a very poor job of even avoiding the appearance of bias towards Trump, specifically the majority conservatives. Trump seen shaking the hands of Chief Justice Roberts and telling him he owes him one in front of the whole world pretty much sends a clear messege that he expects the court to be favorable to his views. All of us know the conservatives in the court are already biased towards Trump.
George cant understand the law, so its just “bias towards trump”, as if the justices are fvcking 5th graders.
Sleestak, do you ever listen to yourself?
I’m serious dude. You prove yourself a moron every day here.
George, is that the decision or the dissent?
Professor Turley not only left out the sentence that George quotes but the 5 paragraphs that follow “This conclusion is dubious”. Professor Turley should further review these parts and update his post accordingly.
There is no need for oral argument about jurisdiction in a habeas case. There is nothing to argue.
Is the conclusion dubious or is it so obvious there was no need for oral argument? Oral argument is not a requirement for judges to reach a decision on every matter. Judges frequently decide from the bench where the law is clear. As Turley points out – what other basis than habeas exists for a defendant to challenge deportation under the AEA? The AEA is quite clear in its language. You may not like that language since, like many Democrats these days, you have a fetish for protecting the rights of illegal aliens while constantly demanding the effective elimination of the first amendment for actual citizens whenever the govt arbitrarily decides a citizen has uttered a bit of dis/mis/mal-information – an act that clearly fall far outside the purview of any state power provided under the Constitution. Start displaying some concern for the inalienable rights of the citizenry if you want to be taken seriously again.
I would kindly ask Democrats to refrain from bringing their fetishes into our courts of law since in doing so they are actively destroying the legitimacy of the judiciary itself. Please get control of yourselves and your bizarre predilections which are unseemly and inappriopriate and, most importantly, an outrage to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
I bet Trump kicks himself he didn’t nominate Bill Pryor for that seat.
“ Those in custody will be accorded a hearing, though the odds are weighted heavily against them in prevailing in such a habeas action.”
At least they are making sure even those held under the AEA are entitled to a hearing and review of their status as gang members. They also clearly assert that the AEA is subject to judicial review.
Turley doesn’t mention the fact that Judge Boesberg correctly pointed out that the government moves deteinees to either Texas, or Louisiana because Trump judges are assigned to those districts. It’s also a form of forum shopping.
You are either unaware of the meaning of forum shopping or are purposefully mangling it. Holding illegals in specific ICE facilities is not forum shopping. Forum shopping is what Dems are doing when they bring cases in multiple jurisdictions at the same time to increase the likelihood of a favorable ruling in one of them, at which point they drop the cases in the other jurisdictions and proceed in the one with their preferrred ruling.
Boasberg pointed out partisanship by fellow judges.
Bwahahahahabababa fvcking stooge
The administration wants the public to believe three different things, all of which are in conflict with each other.
First, Trump’s tariffs are designed to launch a renaissance for American manufacturing replaced by overseas imports, bringing back long lost working class jobs and reinvigorating the blue collar middle class.
Second, the tariffs are meant to raise massive amounts of revenue to replace the progressive income tax.
Third, Trump’s advisers and various online sycophants also claim that the purpose is to use the tariffs as pressure on foreign nations to cut bilateral trade deals with the U.S.
These ideas may make varying individual levels of sense, in that they may do what those promoting them claim if executed strategically and individually (albeit with differing levels of pain for the average American). But put together they make zero sense. Each is in conflict with the other. It can either be one thing or the other thing, but not all three things or even two out of three.
But since “Liberation Day,” the administration has flailed from one rationale to another, often with the administration openly contradicting itself within the hour.
On Monday morning, the Financial Times carried an op-ed from White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, where he declared: “This is not a negotiation.”
Hours later, Trump boasted online that “Countries from all over the world are talking to us. Spoke to Japanese Prime Minister this morning. He is sending a top team to negotiate!”
Soon after, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reposted Trump’s comment online to note that he would lead tariff negotiations with Japan.
Deals, deals, deals. That’s what Trump is known for, so this rationale seems like common sense. But if you make deals with every country in the world to remove tariffs, you also undermine the other two rationales: less protection to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity and less revenue from tariffs.
If the objective is to bring back American manufacturing and jobs, then negotiation is out of the question.
If the objective is to simply to pressure other countries to negotiate and cut a bilateral deal on trade, then they are lying about the intent to bring back American manufacturing.
One of those other rationales is that tariffs will raise so much revenue that the U.S. will be able to eliminate the income tax.
“Wouldn’t it be amazing to stop paying taxes to the Internal Revenue Service and have the External Revenue Service of Make America Great Again replace our taxes,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in March.
The thinking, if you can call it that, is that tariff revenue will be so high that the government can eliminate most income taxes.
“You’re going to see billions of dollars, even trillions of dollars coming into our country very soon in the form of tariffs,” Trump said in March.
If you want to raise lots of revenue from tariffs then you would not want to see domestic manufacturing replace those imports: The imports must flow for the revenue to keep coming in, and you don’t want a cheaper domestic alternative that avoids the tax.
And if you want to bring back manufacturing, you want a cheaper domestic product that is an appealing alternative, allowing companies and consumers to avoid the pricier imports entirely.
None of this makes any sense to a rational observer.
However, the MAGA cult is lapping this stuff up as a great victory.
Exactly right.
In February Bessent said, “I think tariffs are a means to an end, and that end is bringing the manufacturing base back to the U.S.”
This is, quite plainly, the point of tariffs. A country imposes a levy on imports as protection for the domestic market. This disincentivizes imports while incentivizing domestic production.
However this only works with if paired with an industrial policy that subsidizes or promotes domestic industry.
That is what the Biden administration did with its combination of tariffs and industrial policy enacted through the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS & Science Act. Those two laws provided subsidies to build domestic production of microchips, electric vehicles, batteries and various other products for the clean energy sector. To protect these infant industries, Biden imposed tariffs, largely on goods from China where the industry is more developed.
The most stringent of these was a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.
That is why we do not have cheap Chinese EV’s here.
Trump is imposing draconian tariffs, but at the same time he is doing nothing to promote domestic industries or protect American workers.
In fact he is doing the exact opposite and trying to unilaterally gut or not implement the Inflation Reduction Act’s subsidies meant to build domestic manufacturing capacity in the clean energy sector, and he’s called for Congress to repeal the CHIPS & Science Act.
He is also actively working to undermine workers through National Labor Relations Board rulemakings and other anti-union and worker practices. So he wants jobs to be returned to America, but he simultaneously wants to gut protections from those same workers.
None of this makes any sense.
“Exactly right,” says this nony, posting twice so as to seem like he has support from others on this blog.
Rabble rabble
I laughed out loud that this moron thinks we couldnt tell its the same person.
Longwinded crybaby loser
I am beginning to wonder is perhaps Justice Barrett is simply clueless with regards to her many controversial decisions. Very rarely do I read any of her opinions and think, oh, that makes sense.
Isn’t jurisdiction a fundamental question to answer before it even gets assigned a judge?
In the series “1923” season finale, a ND murder defendant, who was captured in Texas, had the case brought before a Texas court. Yes, the defendant also committed murder in this Texas jurisdiction, but the court emphatically chastised the prosecutor for even pursuing this case anywhere other than ND.
Venue. Absolutely nothing in this case happened in the District of Columbia Olly. Nothing. This was as blatant a case of Democratic judge shopping as we’ve ever seen.
Olly: Your point is well-taken, but somehow I thought that jurisdiction was pleaded or at least argued at the beginning because I seem to recall some assertion that because defendants were first detained in DC and then “illegally” transferred to Lousiana, this issue (of DC jurisdiction) had indeed been nodded upon by Boasberg?
(of course, it’s assuming a combined venue/jurisdiction assertion)
“Lin” is right in her inference. See
“As the government has already explained and Plaintiffs do not appear to dispute, the
government complied with the Court’s temporary restraining order issued during the morning of
March 15, and did not remove any of the five individual plaintiffs. The government did so despite
its powerful jurisdictional and other objections to the Court’s unprecedented assertion of judicial
power to review the Proclamation. Cf. Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 164 (1948) (explaining
that the “very nature of the President’s power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the
notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion”) https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/doj-motion-to-vacate-boasberg-venezuelan-migrant-hearing.pdf
Habeas Corpus screams the leftist when it comes to murderous drug dealing thugs incarcerated in Texas. Where was the call for Habeas Corpus for the Jan 6 prisoners held in solitary confinement for months without being charged with a crime. The right to Habeas Corpus should be extended to those who are legal citizens of the U.S. but no such right should be applied to those who have broken the law to gain entry. We know of course that all these fine fellows showed up for their immigration hearings on the assigned day.
I totally agree with you. These people were illegal aliens and not subject to the jurisdiction (showing loyalty) of the United States. If it is the President’s job to uphold the laws of this country then how can a judge decide if the law is unlawful and he/she can simply stack on a slew of requirements that are not listed in the law? What is the job of SCOTUS but to interpret the law. How do we keep having 4 or 5 justices that rule on their own opinion of a law and not what the law says. Giving people who entered our country illegally and have absolutely no right to be here should not be afforded Habeas Corpus. The laws of the United States are written for US citizens, not for an illegal who moves in unlawfully. And even then the J6 political prisoners were held for years without Habeas Corpus or even charges when it was their civil right to be afforded Habeas Corpus. I mostly look at the Supreme Court as the most untrustworthy court in the country. And IMO I believe John Roberts is compromised and does what he is told.