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.
I’m one endictment away from being re-elected. Next!
So lightly you take this bob. Have you ever been cuffed? I thought we solved this after 911 and who is a terrorist? Same same here who is is? The government should have to prove BEFORE that you are it! Before they wield a law against you. Yes standard they are not American and don’t deserve to be here – sent back. But this wasn’t just sent back – it was sent back to a he’ll hole prison. Are you not a human? When will they get a hearing there to say we got it wrong? So we swap it up all they people who came to our notion to escape persecution – we persucute. If we had x – we’d jail them. Yet we send back to be jailed in hell? We owe ourselves better! What differentiate me and mine from this guy? Announce that! And if its proof of crime
Then sentence here. Before relegating to their hells. I am maga – but this could be anyone. If we don’t in the first instance give due process if in the “Association’ or not. Worse if the in the addition – what of innocent landlords and the fair housing act?
Semi-OT. In another interesting court proceeding, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a Bush II-appointed judge of a lower court to order reinstatement of a lawsuit against a school district for keeping gender transitions secret from parents that the lower court judge had dismissed. The panel was composed of judges appointed by Clinton, Obama, and Trump, with the order written by the Obama-apponted judge. While it is tempting to speculate that this could mark a changing of the tide with respect to erroneous rulings by activist judges, it is most likely just an isolated exception to the (ongoing) trend. It is probably, more than anything else, an example reinforcing a long-standing observation of mine that a President can nominate a judge whom he believes mirrors his political philosophy, but the reality often strongly resembles Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates… Nevertheless, the ruling is a pleasant and refreshing change from the current status quo.
=================================================================================================
Liberal appeals court resurrects lawsuit against secret gender transitions in schools
“Nearly two years after a judge nominated by President George W. Bush affirmed a school district that hid a student’s gender transition from her mother, finding that Chico Unified has a “legitimate state interest” in assuming Aurora Regino would respond by abusing her daughter, a federal appeals court known for its liberal bent came to the mother’s rescue.”
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/liberal-appeals-court-resurrects-lawsuit-against-secret-gender-transitions
She wanted somehow be in the dissent, even if she had to do incoherently.
Did we need a district judge’s approval before ‘Black Jack’ Pershing went after Pancho Villa?
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS, KING JAMES
Did Eisenhower need a district judge’s approval when he executed Operation Wetback?
Eisenhower was the president in whom executive power was vested exclusively.
Did Eisenhower need the approval of the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, His Majesty King James Boasberg of the Juristocracy?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operation Wetback was an immigration law enforcement initiative created by Joseph Swing, a retired United States Army lieutenant general and head of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The program was implemented in June 1954 by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell.[1] The short-lived operation used military-style tactics to remove Mexican immigrants—some of them American citizens—from the United States.
– Wiki
@Professor Turley, I’m curious about the President’s power to recognize a foreign nation/power? What prevents the President from recognizing a cartel as a foreign nation/power? If he can, then it seems he can recognize TDA and other terrorist organization as a foreign power and then y become subject to him proclaiming they are invading the country?
And how does the supreme court ruling jive with the suspicion act in the Constitution? It seems pretty clear
The suspension clause in the Constitution?
“unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion”.
The Supreme Court seems to be saying folks that are declared enemies of the state are allowed due process via habeas. But the suspension clause that is in the Constitution says habeas can be suspended for “invasion”. Who gets to decide an “invasion”? And then who gets to suspend habeas? It seems the President gets to declare an invasion. Just reading the Constitution suspension clause, I don’t read anything that all that implies a judgement cause by any branch of the government. I read it more as habeas corpus applies except in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion”. How does the Supreme Court incorporate the suspension clause in their opinion?
Perhaps they could refilm RED DAWN with judges deciding every action taken to protect the country.
Perfect unanswered question! That they went habeous – must means no invasion! Good thing PM Bondi intrisicts – but that is going to be a 500 million problem! They better have proof the coke was destined usa. Not a Powell type lie! As they sniffed!
Your loss
Trump did not find that TdA was a foreign power, he found they were an agent of a foreign power.
He relied on information from CIA and other sources that provided evidence that TdA acted as an arm of the Maduro regime in Venezeula, while in Venezeuala and that the Madoru regime intentionally sent them to the US to disrupt the country.
Anyone who is interested in a legal discussion:
Check out Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, where the migrant sought a habeas petition to remain in this country:
“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)).”
Guess who wrote this? ALITO!
Alito in 2020 held that transfers were NOT CORE habeas relief.
Why shouldn’t Alito be bound by…. ALITO? Alito does not even attempt to distinguish this transfer from that recent transfer case. Instead, he borrows from the Section 1983 line of cases, which is NOT a transfer issue and has NEVER been applied for any other types of habeas issues.
I would love a cogent response that could plausibly distinguish 2020 Alito from 2025 Alito?
Nobody cares. 🥱
As I mentioned, for those who actually care about, I dunno, legal questions on a purportedly legal blog. If you don’t, then go about your day.
“Purported legal blog” is an appropriate description.
This is nothing more than a bought and paid for propaganda site that Turley sold to Fox long ago.
It is now just a place where MAGA cultists gather to spout Trumpian propaganda.
This is nothing more than a bought and paid for propaganda site that Turley sold to Fox long ago. It is now just a place where MAGA cultists gather to spout Trumpian propaganda.
Translation into English: “Turley and most of the people who comment here are not left-wing extremists like me. Furthermore, I have no evidence that Fox owns this site, but I just say so because other dweebs have said so and I repeat whatever they say, because I have no ability to think for myself.”
Because in Munaf v. Harvey [Consolidated into Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008)].
Munaf was a Custody in a Foreign Jurisdiction matter.
“… On October 13, 2006, Munaf’s lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking his release from then Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey’s custody and to block the transfer of Munaf to Iraqi custody.[5] On October 19, Judge Royce Lamberth dismissed the petition and denied the motions for the temporary restraining order sua sponte.[6][7] In the memorandum opinion dismissing the petition, the judge stated that the court lacked jurisdiction because Munaf is being held in MNF-I custody, not US custody, thus failing the 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) requirements for habeas corpus relief.[8] Munaf’s lawyers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and on October 27, The D.C. Circuit also denied Munaf’s motion for injunctive relief, but ordered the US military to refrain from releasing Munaf into Iraqi custody pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[9] Munaf’s attorneys’ filed a petition to the Supreme Court on November 6, 2006, and on November 13, 2006 the court refused certiorari. Munaf’s attorneys attempted to have the case reconsidered by the D.C. Circuit en banc, but on April 6 the appeal was denied and the District Court’s decision upheld.[10][11] …”
Ref:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munaf_v._Geren
“… On December 7, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Munaf’s case,[18] and oral arguments were heard on March 25.[5] On February 29, it was announced by several organizations that the Associated Press, the American Bar Association, the committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, the PEN American Center and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press would be filing amici curiae on behalf of Munaf and Shawqi Ahmad Omar.[4][19][20]
The court handed down its decision on June 12, 2008, finding habeas jurisdiction existed but found that habeas corpus provided them with no relief holding that “Habeas corpus does not require the United States to shelter such fugitives from the criminal justice system of the sovereign with authority to prosecute them.” …”
Ref::
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Munaf#Munaf_v._Harvey
–
In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. (Circa 2020)
The D.H.S. had Jurisdiction as the matter was on U.S. sovereign soil and Thuraissigiam was lawfully detained in U.S. Jurisdiction.
“…The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Alito wrote that the habeas corpus claim made by Thuraissigiam failed as “it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope ‘when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.'” as “Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country.”[9] Alito further addressed the claims of due process would only be extended to those “who have established connections in this country” and not to a situation like Thuraissigiam who had just entered the country.[9] …”
Ref.:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security_v._Thuraissigiam
Summary:
Munaf – Custody – in a Foreign Jurisdiction (No Jurisdiction)
Thuraissigiam – Custody and Jurisdiction (U.S.)
Two fundamentally different cases (upon Jurisdiction circumstances) addressed accordingly by Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and other members of the SCOTUS.
(I’ll only charge you 2 Billable Hrs. – f.y.i.: We now take Bitcoin)
You missed the whole point.
The final bolded quote of yours above is exactly the opposite of what Alito said in this case.
Alito now says that a transfer is core habeas even though a a transfer was not core habeas 5 years ago
“… Alito wrote that the habeas corpus claim made by Thuraissigiam failed as “it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope ‘when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.’” …”
That still doesn’t negate the ‘Jurisdiction’ factors between the two cases. If your point is to say that Alito is two-faced or hypocritical, I still say no.
Because the habeas situations were different. One was in custody in Iraq and One was in custody in the United States. Both were lawful detentions.
In Munaf, think of it in terms of Extradition. Munaf didn’t want to to be extradited to Iraq. Had the U.S. have had sovereign custody then there could have been an Extradition case between the U.S. and Iraq . But Munaf was being held in Iraq in MNF-I custody. He was Theirs no doubt about it, Iraq had every right to Extradite him.
Just as Thuraissigiam was Ours (inside our Jurisdiction). Thuraissigiam aim was completely different, His attempt was to buy-time stay in custody until his asylum claim could be obtained. There was not question of Sovereign and Jurisdiction. He was on Our Turf. Sri Lanka didn’t want him back, no one was making a case for that.
Both Munaf and Thuraissigiam were lawfully under Custody in their respective Jurisdiction.
There was no unlawful detention in either case.
“Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country.”
Munaf wanted to avoid Extradition to an Iraq prison.
Thuraissigiam wanted to avoid Deportation back to Sri Lanka.
If you want to conflate the two cases and say that Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. contradicted himself, more power to you.
I think your wrong about that.
There was a number of People that broke the laws and entered Our Country illegally (since the last amnesties were granted).
There were ‘amnesties granted’ in the past for Illegal Immigrants, This President is not going to grant amnesties, relying of adherence to Immigration Policies,
underwritten by the mandate of the People.
People must follow the Rules from the very start if they want to live here – You & I have to. That is a reasonable proposition.
Alito’s views on the scope of Habeaus have nothing to do with the recent case.
The AEA empowers the president to detain and then deport TdA members.
It allows a Habeuas challenge.
YOU wish to view that as a challenge to deportation.
But a successful habeaus challegen will result in the alleged TdA members release.
Which is consistent with what YOU claim is Alito’s past position on Habeaus – a claim that you appear to be framing more broadly than it is.
We constantly get this from left wing nuts.
There are numerous studies that have been done that show that conservatives and libertarians can accurately restate the positions of those on the left but that those on the left can not accurately restate the positions – not just of those on the right, but anyone they disagree with. A more recent study finds that you are not even able to empathize with those who do not share your views.
67% of democrats have empathy for Luigi Mangione but most of you do not even remember who Brian Thompson the man he murdered was, and you would have no ability to empathize with him if you did.
I do not know what it takes for you to grasp that you are not capable of accurately understanding any position except your own.
Elon Musk slammed President Donald Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro as “truly a moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks” on Tuesday.
Musk’s insults came in response to Navarro’s comments made Monday on CNBC about Tesla’s manufacturing practices, in which Navarro referred to Musk, Tesla’s CEO, as “not a car manufacturer” but “a car assembler” while arguing that the car company depends heavily on foreign supply chains for items such as batteries.
Now, Musk, who’s overseeing federal spending cuts under President Donald Trump, has fired back at Navarro’s claims.
“Navarro is truly a moron. What he says here is demonstrably false,” Musk wrote on X Tuesday while replying to a social media user who posted a clip of Navarro’s comments. “Tesla has the most American-made cars. Navarro is dumber than a sack of bricks.”
Everything seems to be running smoothly in that well-oiled machine that is the Trump administration !!!!
He has assembled a well-organized and cohesive team who are working in total harmony to achieve their objectives !!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
The above is the kind of desperate and pathetic attempt to detract from success written by people who know they’ve lost the game. Focusing on personal disputes rather than policy achievements says it all. The Left has lost big, and they know it. Don’t fall for their distraction games.
“Policy achievements”? Did the hundreds of thousands of Americans who took to the streets on Saturday do so to show their support for the Trump regime, or did I misread the numerous signs that said things like “Trump Sucks”. “Hands Off”, and the like?
“Success”? Are you joking or just repeating MAGA propaganda? Polls, including Rasmussen, show that Americans do NOT approve of Trump, Musk, and Republicans, much less the unnecessary damage they have done to our economy and our relations with our allies.
ATS
Do you understand that people neither beleive nor care what you say ?
I have no idea if what you claim is true.
I do know that I do not trust YOU to accurately present anything and certainly not in context.
You are truly a moron. What you say is demonstrably false, you are dumber than a sack of bricks.
I would further note that you and other left wing nuts claim that Musk is getting preferential treatment because of DOGE,
Yet Clearly he is not. Seems like another lie on your part.
Navarro and Musk disagree on a relatively fine point of Tariffs. The decision gets made by the president – not Navarro, not Trump.
John Say
Musk calls Navarro a moron.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/08/us-news/elon-musk-rips-moron-trump-trade-adviser-peter-navarro/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdrgx4ky1xxo
John Say
Musk also tried to get Trump to back off the latest round of tariffs
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-made-direct-appeals-trump-reverse-new-tariffs-washington-post-reports-2025-04-08/
Musk also said that he wants zero tariffs with Europe.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/musk-says-he-hopes-zero-tariffs-between-us-europe-2025-04-05/
These are not fine points of disagreement.
A newly formed organization, the “New Civil Liberties Alliance”, has filed suit against Trump claiming that Trump’s decision to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give him the power to “usurp” Congress’s right to control tariffs or “upset the Constitution’s separation of powers.”
In a press release, the group argued that the emergency statute “authorizes specific emergency actions like imposing sanctions or freezing assets to protect the United States from foreign threats.”
“It does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” the NCLA wrote.
“Congress has sole authority to control tariffs, which it has done by passing detailed tariff statutes. The President cannot bypass those statutes by invoking ‘emergency’ authority in another statute that does not mention tariffs,” the group continued. “His attempt to use the IEEPA this way not only violates the law as written, but it also invites application of the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of ‘vast economic and political significance’ in a law without explicit congressional authorization.”
So who is actually funding this new group, New Civil Liberties Alliance.
The most likely culprit would be George Soros, wouldn’t you agree ?????
WRONG !!!
New Civil Liberties Alliance is funded by none other than those extreme leftist commies, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, and the Koch organization.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA !!!!!!!!
Yawn 🥱
So ? Leo is a federalist. That is not a bad thing.
I likely agree with him that as the constitution is written, he is correct.
The problem is that for 250 years and particularly in the past 100 that is not how Tariffs have worked.
The 2nd problem that the NCLA has is that whether the executive is exceding the statutory powers given it by congress is a claim that ONLY congress can make – not the NCLA.
Congress has standing to challenge the presidents implementation of laws passed by congress.
The NCLA does not.
If you are unhappy about Trump’s tariffs – Write your congressmen.
Presidents routinely exceed the powers delegated to them by congress. That is nothing new.
Nor is their inherently anything wrong with that – so long as there is no violation of any individual rights.
It is an intentional aspect of our constitutional structure. Presidents are administrators – CEO’s
Many aspects of the management of the country are done on a daily basis or in response to changing circumstances – even to elections.
Congress exactly like the board of directors of a company can give their consent implicitly – by failing to reign the president in,
They can do so explicitly by expanding the law, or they can withdraw their consent by clarifying the law or taking the administration to court.
John Say
As usual John Say rants incoherently and opines on matters of which he has no knowledge or expertise.
You say that the New Civil Liberties Alliance has no standing to file suit.
That is correct.
However, the NCLA is not the plaintiff.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance is FUNDING the suit in which a business in Florida is the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is Simplified, a Florida-based home goods company whose business relies entirely on imported materials from China.
They are arguing that Trump’s move to impose even more tariffs on China would crush the company into oblivion.
THEY ABSOLUTELY DO HAVE STANDING TO FILE SUIT !!!!!!
By now, anyone with common sense, let alone knowledge of the law, knows that Amy Commie Barrett is a TOTAL MARXIST—FRAUDULENTLY POSING AS A “CONSERVATIVE.” But to those of us who have actually followed Amy Commie Barrett’s career, her Marxist approach to falsely applying the law is well known. She conveyed as much during her Congressional testimony. As you can see in the video below, she draws all sorts of false conclusions and treats George Floyd as though he was a fallen hero. A genuine judge with just a scintilla of integrity would NEVER comment on a video in a pending criminal trial. NEVER! But not Amy Commie Barrett. She gladly proceeds to label police office Derek Chauvin a racist and a murderer, when there was ZERO EVIDENCE of either of those things. Chauvin followed the Minneapolis Police procedures and manual by the book and even the Mob-“Justice” Persecutors never said there was evidence of racism. They did, however, with the help of the Mob-“Justice” judge LIE about the real reasons that Floyd died while in police custody. Floyd not only overdosed on fentanyl, but because he was a long-term overdoser and drug addict, FLOYD’S LUNGS WERE INFLATED TO MORE THAN TWICE THEIR NORMAL SIZE, CAUSED BY MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FLUIDS IN HIS LUNGS, making breathing difficult and ultimately cutting off the oxygen supply to his heart and brain. The Mob-“Justice” Coroner was easily persuaded to LIE UNDER OATH about the real reasons Floyd died because of the riots and the fact that ALL Democrat leaders and judges were 100% behind convicting Chauvin on FALSE EVIDENCE even before the trial. Here’s the BOGUS testimony of the depraved, degenerate, racist, lowlife, Amy Commie Barrett:
Anonymous – there is not a supreme court justice that i am fully in agreement with.
Wierdly Barrett has been on the wrong side of several recent cases when Roberts was on the right side.
AND Roberts has been on the wrong side when ACB is on the right side.
These decisions should have been 9-0 to send a clear message.
But 5-4 is still a win. With Barrett and Roberts unreliable we Still get a 6-3, or 5-4 decision in the right direction nearly always.
The George Floyd video is disturbing.
It is also out of context and misrepresents circumstances.
That does not change the fact that it is disturbing.
That is why we should make decisions based on FACTS not emotions.
Chauvins conviction was a travesty. Hoepully it and the other officers with him will eventually get those convictions overturned.
No, there is nothing disturbing about the video. The Minneapolis Police Manual describes the exact same procedure that Police Officer Derek Chauvin used in the video. He followed it by the book. Even though copies of the Police Manual showing and describing this procedure were distributed widely in the alternative media, that didn’t stop the trial “judge” from BLOCKING that as evidence, nor stop a representative of the Minneapolis Police from lying, falsely claiming that there was no such procedure. Furthermore, apart from that, there are complete videos of the entire event and the evidence shows that at no time did Officer Chavin apply any pressure to Floyd neck with his knee. Rather, Chavin LIFTED HIS KNEE each time that Floyd raised his head so as not to interfere with his breathing at any time. Even the Coroner, who lied under oath by failing to disclose that Floyd’s lungs were inflated to more than twice their normal size with fluid because of Floyd’s repeated and long-term fentanyl overdose, admited that there were absolutely no signs of any pressure applied to Floyd’s neck. So, what do you find distrubring, John Say? If the races of the parties involved were reversed would that make it not distrubing at all to you? Please ‘splain.
Apparently, John Say cannot explain what he finds “disturbing” about the George Floyd video. This is because the REAL reason he finds the video distrurbing is that he either doesn’t like the MANDATED knee procedures that was in the Minneapolis Police Manual for dealing with criminals who fight back against the police and refuse to follow their instructions when they’ve broken the law OR John Say just loves criminals. So, which is it, John Say? John Say won’t Say.
I would like to see the entire Democrat agenda spelled out. So far all I have is:
1. Letting men beat the crap out of women in sports despite serious injuries already sustained by women.
2. Opposing all attempts to secure elections from fraud.
3. Opening the borders to the entire world population including any crimes or disease they may bring.
4. Free sex change procedures for federal prisoners. This is basically cosmetic surgery.
5. Racial discrimination in hiring (DEI).
6. Racial segregation in university dorms and ceremonies.
7. Releasing violent criminals without bail for ‘equity’.
8. Taking children out of the parent’s home when parents use the ‘wrong’ pronouns [Colorado].
9. Taking away your gas range and other appliances that work.
10. Forcing you to drive electric vehicles [except Tesla].
11. Encouraging you to eat bugs instead of meat.
There are more, but that should be a winning ticket in any election…they think.
Mr. Turley, would you please explain to the non-attorney what exactly is he as corpus and why wasn’t it used when several J6 defendants were held for long periods of Ive without even a charge. It would mean a lot to me and many others.
Habeas Corpus is an old English writ (order) directed by a court to a jailer to set a person free basically saying to the government “you have the body” and I (the court) wants it now. It involves proving a person is wrongfully detained, arrested or imprisoned and was an equiatble remedy in the English common law and known to the Brits as “The Great Writ” or a Get-Out-Of-Jail Free card in my venacular. It was adopted in the US and continues to serve as an avenue for prisoners to gain freedom if they can show violation of their rights in some way. In this case, its more theoretical than practical which is why the illegal gang eschewed it for the more favorable administrative law violation which Judge Noseyburg opted to misuse to further his own political agenda.
How many instances per year of mistaken identity end up putting an innocent person in jail? It’s in the dozens at least. Habeas corpus is the primary tool available to correct these injustices. It forces the police/jailer to prove the true ID of the person they are incarcerated matches the true ID of the person in the arrest warrant.
Illegal immigrants who jettison their IDs when jumping the border put themselves at risk of misidentification.
Anon: ” Illegal immigrants who jettison their IDs when jumping the border put themselves at risk of misidentification.”
Simply being illegal qualifies them for deportation no matter who they are. They can figure it out when they get home.
Correct but there are a large number of details that dictate exactly how much due process they get prior to deportation.
It is generally difficult to deport an illegal alien who has entered the country undetected and has flown under the radar for some time.
Difficult means the process is long and tedious and involves alot of due process.
You can not just do a DNA test to determine if someone is here legally
Everyone legally in the US does not have birth certificates or other documents, and often those here illegally have forgeries or other forms of false documents.
Biden actually did a disservice to illegal immigrants with his CBP app. He encourged people to cross into the US and then register on the app. In return he made it more difficutl to deport them during his administration.
But he made it much easier for Trump to deport them – their registration on the App is much the same as crossing and getting caught.
It documents that they are here illegally and significantly lowers the burden of proof on the government to deport them.
“ He encourged people to cross into the US and then register on the app.”
Wrong. That was not encouraged or promoted. The app was created specifically to “get in line.” it was a legal means to seek entry and to keep tabs on their status.
Mespo–
I have been wondering why the lawyers for Derek Chauvin haven’t begun a habeas proceeding in Texas where he is now held, well away from the corrupt jurisdiction where he was ‘convicted
The autopsy indicates no life threatening injuries on Floyd nor any signs of neck damage or asphyxiation. But it does show Floyd had a lethal concentration of fentanyl in his system together with an enlarged heart and significant arterial blockage. One could argue that Chauvin’s trial was little more than a judicial lynching and that he should be freed.
I do not know the details of Chauvin’s appeals.
But generally Habeus is a last resort – a hail mary. Nor is it clear than Chauvin has a strong Habeaus claim.
Once a person is convicted by a jury, a habeas claim is basically gone. (Note: “habeas” has no letter u) They instead have to rely on other post-conviction procedures such as the state legislature has enacted. These vary from state to state, and the federal constitution does not obligate states to have any such procedures (the situation could be different under the state constitution). A quick google search shows that in Minnesota the statutory post-conviction relief procedures are governed by Chapter 590 for whatever that’s worth. States with a state-constitutional right of habeas as well as statutory post-conviction procedures have often held that any claim that can be brought under the statute cannot also be brought as a habeas petition. These often include time limits such as one year from the date the conviction becomes final on appeal.
I am not sure that habeas corpus is unavailable after conviction. It challenges the legality of detention and if the detention is based on a patently flawed trial then release should be available. If the Habeas Writ is based on gross violations of federal law, including the Constitution, the niceties of state law have nothing to do with it.
There are also federal convictions and they can be addressed with a writ of coram nobis possibly, or a Habeas writ. We can guess the motives of the compromised Biden DOJ in pursuing federal charges against the officers present.
Unfortunately the political environment was so heated that the appellate courts appeared to be afraid to do their job.
The whole thing has disgraced the American judicial and political system.
There are lots of post-conviction habeas petitions after all appeals are exhausted.
Mespo,
Yes. And an important quality of a Habeas petition is that new evidence can be presented.
You know but others may not that an appeal is based on the record established in the court that heard the matter. No new evidence is introduced on appeal.
In Chauvin’s case we have learned that at least one of the jurors was involved with BLM. I don’t think he was candid during voir dire. That tainted the jury verdict to some degree and likely intimidated other jurors who were concerned that their identities would be leaked to the mob.
One of the police officers who testified that the knee on shoulder maximal restraint used by Chauvin was never used or authorized was recently shown to have used the same restraint long before the Floyd incident. There is a photo of her using it in a police department annual.
The police chief testified that the restraint was never used, but it was taught by the police department and shown in their training manual looking exactly as it did when Chauvin used it on Floyd. I think the judge refused to let the jury see that illustration but the jurors were likely in terror and no evidence was likely to change their verdict.
The jury wasn’t voting to convict so much as voting to live.
excellent summary.
In deportation cases a habeaus claim is likely limited to Are you the person that the deportation order is for.
We hear on the news all this nonsense about gay haridressors and faux MS13 members.
If you have been adjudicated by other courts to be a member of TdA or MS13 – a Habeaus review does NOT get to revisit that.
But they do get to assure that the deportation order is for YOU, that there is no mistaken identity.
Specifically in the case of TdA members where a lower court has NOT established that they are TdA members – the deportee could challenge the claim they are a TdA member.
There are likely differences if the deportee is being sent to their home country, or being sent to further detention in a 3rd country.
In the later case the deportee would have more right to due process, because they are being incarcerated by the US under contract.
Conversly Garcia is was deported to his home country – El Salvador. If El Salvador wishes to imprison him – that is not our business, and he does not get a higher standard of due process.
TdA members sent to Venezeula could be released to the streets or sent to prison by El Salvador.
It is not US courts business, unless the US govenrment has actual control over what happens to them.
The recent SCOTUS decisions do NOT preclude challenges to Trump’s invocation fo the AEA.
They merely stop TROs and preliminary injunctions SCOTUS established and other federal courts MUST follow, that Trump is LIKELY to prevail on his AEA claims. It is still possible that after lower full court review facts and/or law may undermine that conclusion.
SCOTUS did NOT decide if Trump’s use of he AEA was lawful.
They decided that for the purposes of TRO’s and preliminary injunctions it is LIKELY lawful.
Google Translate: Habeas Corpus – You Have A Body
___________________________________________________________
I first heard that Habeas Corpus meant “BRING ME THE BODY.”
A Writ of Habeas Corpus literally translates to bring a body before the court. A writ is an order from a higher court to a lower court or government agency or official. When you file a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, you are asking the court to order the government agency to appear and bring you before the court.
– Spolin Law
_______________
What does habeas corpus mean literally?
AI Overview
Literally, “habeas corpus” means “you shall have the body” in Latin, referring to a writ of habeas corpus, a court order demanding that a person in custody be brought before the court to determine the legality of their detention.
Thank you very much for your response. Why were so many J6 defendants allowed to be held in prison (sometimes in solitary) without trial or even charges?
“Habeas Corpus is an old English writ”
You neglected to address the second part of the OP’s request…
I don’t know much about habeas but couldn’t the lawyers inundate the district courts with habeas proceedings? After all, the whole modus operandi of the Biden Administration was to break the system by inundating it.
Each deportee only gets One oportunity to raise Habeaus. The burden of proof will be on the deportee not the administration.
in the TdA cases the core of a Habeaus claim will most likely be – “I am not TdA and I can prove it”
Habeaus is available outside of AEA cases, but it is likely that any issue raised in a Habeaus challenge was already litigated in the Article II immigration courts. In which case a Habeaus claim will fail quickly.
“ The burden of proof will be on the deportee not the administration.”
Actually the burden of proof is on the government, because they are the ones claiming the deportees are all gang members. Deportees can challenge the assertion by having the government provide the proof of their claim.
Actually you suck at sucking dick, suck at rimming a nice piece of ass, you suck at taking dick and youre the worse when it comes to trolling this site with your fantasy suckpuppets
HAHAHHAAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHA
How is it that a post I made the other day, and then confirmed was posted, that expressed a reasoned opinion, and contained nothing remotely resembling profanity or an ad hom attack, was removed after the fact, and YET A POST LIKE THE ABOVE IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN? SERIOUSLY? Not for the first time, the function and validity of this comment section is very much called into question! Some attention needs to be directed to either the competence of any human moderator, or to the model in use for any Artificial Imbecility tool that has been enabled to do that job.
Sorry, George you are wrong. The TdA member being deported is filing the Habeaus claim. The burden of proof is always on the moving party.
ICE had to go before a magistrate to get the order to take custody of the alleged TdA member, When they did so they had to present the evidence they had that this person was a TdA member.
Once the order was issued the government had met its burden to deport.
If you do not like this – change the law.
We have been over various permutations of this over and over.
deporting an illegal alien back to their home, is NOT the same as infringing on a persons liberty.
There is no right for an illegal alien to be in the US.
Deportation of an illegal alien is not an infringement on any civil or constitutional right.
To deport you using the AEA which is the most abreviated due process for deporting an illegal alien ICE must provide evidence to an Article II court that the person in question is not in the US legally and is a member of TdA. If the court accepts that evidence as proof to a relatively low standard, then Absent the alleged TdA member proving that they are NOT an illegal alien or not a TdA member they will be deported.
The burden of proof in all Habeaus claims is ALWAYS with the plantif – the person being detained.
Again if you do not like that change the law.
As is typical of those on the left – including all these left wing nut judges, you confuse what you wish the law was with what it actually is.
I do not beleive out law in all its details is perfect. I am particularly skeptical of new statutory law.
Common law which has been tested and polished for centuries rarely shows consequential errors.
Statutory law that has been arround for a long time and been tested tends to have few errors.
But newer law always tends to be more error prone.
But my point is that overall all the things that you think you know that you are wrong about were worked out long ago – not by me, or Alito, or the current supreme court. Nearly all supreme court decisions are and should be a reflection of often ancient law
The recent SCOTUS decision that TRO’s can not be issued when there is no irreparable harm was or should have been a given that 4 justices missed on that. The standards for TRO’s are not squishy, and this is not even a close issue – nor is that the only obvious error on the part of the lower courts and the minority.
While there is politics at play – the left is universally opposed to everything that Trump seeks to do. The decisions of courts are supposed to be on the law and constitution
Yet constantly you and others – up to an including supreme court justices allow your personal preferences to interfere with the law and constitution.
I have repeatedly said Trump will lose on the Birth right citizenship EO – there are multiple legal and constitutional issues.
Whatever lack of clarity the constitution has on the issue it does NOT favor Trump.
Further you can not make law by EO, no shoudl a president even try to. An EO is a command to the executive branch on how to administer the country. You can not be EO change the constitution or the law or infringe on peoples actual rights.
I have not followed every Trump EO – but that one for certain is wrong.
It is not wrong because it is politically on the right
It is not wrong because the left opposes it.
It is wrong because it is outside the constitutional powers of the president in multiple ways.
The same is true of this lawfare from the left.
Presidents have the power to cut waste fraud and abuse.
If Congress believes that the president has cut something mandated by statute or constitution congress has numerous ways to deal with that – including going to court. No one else has standing. If you do not like the cuts – write your congressmen.
Someone noted the Federalists challenging Trump’s tariff power. They might be right, but they do not have standing.
Congress does.
The law and constitution are not themselves partisan.
The courts are not supposed to be.
If you do not like what the law and constitution are – you have the power to change the law and constitution.
The rule of law collapses when the law and constitution shift based ont eh whim of the judge.
Wasn’t that the Obama MO?
As the professor points out, in its decision Scotus ruled that the petitioners are entitled to adequate pre-deprivation process. So . . . what exactly is the objection (other than that the lawyers would prefer to litigate closer to their offices)? Is it that DC federal judges are more likely to side with the petitioners, whereas Texas federal judges are more likely to side with the government?
@oldman
You answered your own question. Yes, ‘close to home’ was the point. The regime is scrambling.
We can fully expect blue states to continue this, ad nauseam. It is very likely Texas will soon be one once the major cities and boroughs are captured which is happening. 🤷🏻♂️ Understand fully that this is largely due to Californians relocating.
The modern left are the real 21st century colonialists, and that is just a fact. They are too rich and tone deaf to ever acknowledge it, don’t waste your time. Prove it at the polls. Marginalization of their wealth and idiocy is the only cure for these rich clowns.
No, there are substantive differences between bringing a habeas action and one under the APA.
First, with respect to the 270+ individuals who have already been removed from the country, habeas may not be available. This is the exact argument the government is making in the Abrego Garcia case.
Second, the scope of review in a habeas petition is unlikely to be commensurate with what is available under the APA. Among other things, there’s less case law supporting emergency relief in habeas cases. There are additional practical roadblocks to certifying a class of affected individuals in habeas cases (because each member of the class is presumably challenging their detention, versus seeking facial review of government action). Unlike under the APA, there’s no specter of “universal” relief in a habeas case. And, although Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence plays up the use of habeas historically to prevent unlawful transfers to foreign countries before they happen, the very D.C. Circuit case that he cites in support, “Kiyemba II” (in which he was one of the judges), held that Guantánamo detainees could not use habeas to block their transfer to a foreign country based upon fear that they would be tortured there—so long as the federal government said they wouldn’t be.
With 10-20Million illegal aliens, over 1M with deportation orders, and illegals with criminal records and/or in gangs, giving them all a hearing will never get rid of many. This is insane.
If it is insane then get a constitutional amendment to deny certain people of their Due Process rights.
If you think it is insane then you must think the 5th amendment is also insane, right?
There is no need for a constitutional amendment – and those of you on the left would ignore it anyway.
SCOTUS has already said:
Quit playing games with jurisdiction and venue.
The APA only applies where there is no other lawful means to sue government.
There is already law that specifies how and where you sue the govenrment over contract claims – the APA does not superceded that.
There is already law dealing with jurisdiction on Habeaus claims – Follow it
There is no such thing as a Habeasu class action – that is just an absurd concept.
When the rules of civil procedure proved that TRO’s and preliminary injunctions can only be issued where there is irreparable harm you do not get to manufacture now standards for what constituttes irreparable harm.
There is not a single recent SCOTUS decision that preludes the plantiffs from proceeding,
but they must do so in the correct courts, and they are not going to get TRO’s or preliminary injunctions without meeting the ACTUAL standard for irreparable harm, as well as that for likely to win.
SCOTUS did not for the most part decide against the Plantiffs – it decided against the Judges.
It decided they were making it up as they go.
And it said NO you can not do that.
All immigrants who fraudulently claimed they were under the jurisdiction of the United States were initially illegal and remain illegal to this day.
If they could not have been summoned for jury duty, for but one example, they were never under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Perpetrating a crime does not make the crime legal.
That approximates at least 40 million by now.
The big deal is that the DC judges are chosing to
relitigate the entirety of the deportation process,
Using the APA which does not apply to shift venue, and jurisdiction away from the courts where these cases belong.
There is already a TX federal judge demanding that the administration drage someone back from El Salvador in a Habeaus claim – so NO moving to TX and limiting TdA due process to Habeaus does NOT give Trump free reign to do as he pleases.
It just means that the cases are limited to actual applicable law.
This shouldn’t have been up for debate …….. unbelievable. When the safety and security of our nation’s population is at stake (thanks to the democrat party), the votes to uphold an anti-American “judge” are a national disgrace.
@10ffgrid
No, it shouldn’t have. And it wouldn’t have been even on the part of our democrats at one time. The modern left is part of a globalist regime, period, and many of them are card carrying socialists. The rest of world going down this slippery slope is up to them (though I don’t think hardly any of the people want it), we will not have it in America. Feudalism died in the Middle Ages; let’s leave it dead. Do not expect younger people to understand this.