Posted on 04/09/2025 11:45:36 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
The Supreme Court literally agreed in their ruling (unanimously, at that) that due process is owed to those alleged to be in TdA as part of habeas.
What the SCOTUS ruling was about was that Temporary Restraining Order issued by Boasberg was improperly utilized outside of the proper jurisdiction for this matter, and as such was vacated.
Now the matter has returned to West Texas, where the plaintiffs are actually located.
No, these judges said that the Trump administration can’t move any of these people at all - even within the United States. Doesn’t matter whether the facilities in NY are able to deal with them all. Doesn’t matter whether these violent gangbangers will be put in with non-violent inmates. Doesn’t matter whether these people have filed or ever will file habaes petitions. Doesn’t matter that the order applies to peop[e who have filed no case in the judges’ districts.
IOW, this pretty much ignores most of what SCOTUS ruled.
As far as I’m concerned if they entered illegally they have no rights in the US.
None.
Well, the judge SAID these folks have to stay in NY, so that would meet his order.
It’s stupid to me to even consider that have any rights.
An American illegally in another country would get none. Especially a third world hellhole.
They already slam-dunked Boasberg on the exact same thing.
How many times do they have to do the same slam-dunk on these rogue judges?
Rhetorical question only; please don’t respond. You’ve already strongly implied it is tyranny to exact justice after due process so I see no allegiance whatsoever on your part to the Constitutional system of due process. So we really don’t have any starting point to even discuss.
Re: 86 - eh, okay…
“From the El Valle Detention Center” modifies transferring, relocating, or removing. They are not allowed to transfer, relocate, or remove these people from the El Valle Detention Center.
Sure the orders all involve people detained at that facility, but it includes people who are not in this particular suit. The judge has no jurisdiction to speak to the issue of people not involved in this suit.
Maybe the judge is trying to enforce SCOTUS’s ruling that notification be given and time allowed to launch a habeas proceeding before deportation, but how does he become the enforcer? He can only enforce what is actually before him in the case; yet he’s doing the same thing that Boasberg got slammed for doing.
The enforcement of the SCOTUS ruling would have to come in response to a case from somebody claiming that the administration did NOT follow the SCOTUS ruling. That is when a judge has an actual case in which to make such a ruling.
Nail 95 judges to a church door.
And requiring it to be that way is basically ruling that this is NOT a military/political invasion from a hostile nation. If these were uniformed Venezuelan soldiers how would this ruling have been different? If a uniformed member of the Venezuelan army snuck into the USA and engaged in subversive warfare, would they also be required to file habaes petitions and have their day in court? At what point does civilian become military? It’s the same issue we’ve dealt with overseas, only this time the judges are setting the rules of engagement.
Donald Trump v JGG, 604 US --- (2025), 24A931 Per Curiam
Per curiam at 2:
We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges 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. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardlessof 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. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)).
Per curiam at 3:
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.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
Aliens can be turned away at the border, no problem, but once they are allowed to be here, removal requires due process. Each and every one is entitled to a hearing with a right to be heard.
All nine justices agreed.
Sotomayor dissent at 9-10:
Begin with that upon which all nine Members of this Court agree. The Court’s order today dictates, in no uncertain terms, that “individual[s] subject to detention and removal under the [Alien Enemies Act are] 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.’” Ante, at 2 (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163–164, 172, n. 17 (1948)). Therefore, under today’s order, courts below will probe, among other things, the meaning of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” 50 U. S. C. §21, and ask, for example, whether any given individual is in fact a member of Tren de Aragua. Even the Government has now largely conceded that point. Application 19.So too do we all agree with the per curiam’s command that the Fifth Amendment requires the Government to afford plaintiffs “notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act, . . . within reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” Ante, at 3. That means, of course, that the Government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025. Nor can the Government “immediately resume” removing individuals without notice upon vacatur of the TRO, as it promised the D. C. Circuit it would do. See 2025 WL 914682, *13 (Millett, J., concurring) (referencing oral argument before that court). To the extent the Government removes even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court.
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.