Posted on 04/07/2025 4:05:05 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Two separate issues.
One, relief from the government using the AEA to deport individuals wasn’t granted because it ‘ must be brought in habeas’.
And a temporary pause in the midnight deadline to return the dude.
Both of which require additional hearings.
Yes, I agree.
What exactly is a habeas petition, and who is eligible for one? Thanks for any help you can give. I’m at work on a phone and can’t research what this all means until layer.
Jurisdiction? Yes, the Courts do have jurisdiction over the SUBJECT MATTER in so far as a person disputes he is a member of the terrorist organization. But once he is found to be such? Nope, out he goes under the Act and the Courts can’t hear it.
Venue? No, it was not proper in this case and Boasberg had no business hearing the case when the detention was not within the territorial jurisdiction of the DC District Court. The Government contended this from the get go and thus, his orders are vacated.
“One, relief from the government using the AEA to deport individuals wasn’t granted because it ‘ must be brought in habeas’.”
That was the one the USSC ruled on. I have posted from e decision to you.
THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERS WERE VACATED.
NEITHER REQUIRE ADDITIONAL HEARINGS.
SO BE IT ORDERED.
They don't have the votes to impeach, but they should arrest him. For what?
He's a democRAT. Of course there's serious dirt on the bastard.
“Never, ever, under any circumstance nominate another woman for the court. NEVER!”
Perhaps those MS-13 tattoos got her thinking how cool it would be to one of their girlfriends?
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. J. G. G., et al.
on application to vacate the orders issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia
....
We grant the application and vacate the TROs.
That is a per curiam order. That means unanimous order if the court and the decision says so in the text of the vacating of the order
She was bad news from the start.
The art of discernment is sometimes lacking, here on Free Republic.
There’s a tendency to have knee jerk reactions here sometimes, depending on what the hot issue of the day is.
I’m happy about this order, while knowing that this is really a procedural move. As I understand it, the underlying legal issues still have to be heard in court. And the resulting court case may well go to the Supreme Court at some point.
Cool it with the Snide comments .
I have no time for that nonsense .
I know one of the talking points, has been this is such an old law. The leftist rage , is that Trump is using a law from 1798.
But the constitution itself predates this law that Trump is using. So are they trying to say , the constitution itself is too old to be in our legal structure?
She is the new Souter .
Posters here warned about her .
I knew she was bad news when she sailed thru confirmation .
I suspect L Tribe knew her lefty tendencies. just like Roberts and spreads the word .
Definite disappointment by Barret
This is very VERY good news. Perhaps the act can now be used on those who are declared as terrorist as well.. Yes.?
Yes!
I don’t know how better to explain to you what happened than I did in the post you responded to.
Hopefully you will understand when each of those issues are further litigated.
Barret went with the libs, I had such utter false hope for her BOY WAS I WRONG!!!
“”How did the justices decide individually? The article does not say.””
It was 5 to 4....
“Five Supreme court Justices, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito were in favor of vacating Boasberg’s orders.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.