Replies

You put the aliens through the process Roberts would want.

Yes, put them through the process that will actually get them removed. Appoint an army of immigration judges to do the processing. That's if they actually want to get something done.

For the latest edition of ridiculousness, see D.V.D. v. DHS.

D.V.D. v DHS, D Mass 1:25-cv-10676-BEM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.34.0_1.pdf

Doc 34, TRO of 28 March 2025

2) Defendants, and all of their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from:
a) Removing Plaintiffs D.V.D., M.M., and E.F.D. from the United States to a third country, i.e., a country other than the country designated for removal in the prior immigration proceedings, UNLESS and UNTIL Defendants provide Plaintiffs D.V.D., M.M. and E.F.D., and their respective counsel, with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed, and UNTIL Defendants provide a meaningful opportunity for Plaintiffs D.V.D., M.M. and E.F.D. to submit an application for protection, including withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to the immigration court, and if any such application is filed, UNTIL Plaintiffs D.V.D., M.M., and E.F.D. receive a final agency decision on any such application;
b) Removing any individual subject to a final order of removal from the United States to a third country, i.e., a country other than the country designated for removal in immigration proceedings, UNLESS and UNTIL Defendants provide that individual, and their respective immigration counsel, if any, with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed, and UNTIL Defendants provide a meaningful opportunity for that individual to submit an application for CAT protection to the immigration court, and if any such application is filed, UNTIL that individual receives a final agency decision on any such application.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.72.1.pdf

Doc 72-1, Exhibit A, Declaration of Tracy Huettl, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Unit Chief for Field Operations, Domestic Operations, Southwest Region.

12. My understanding is that on or about March 31, 2025, [REDACTED] was removed to El Salvador by the Department of Defense (DOD) on a flight where no DHS personnel were onboard. DHS did not direct DOD to remove him.
[...]
18. It is my understanding that on or about March 31, 2025, [REDACTED] was removed to El Salvador by the DOD on a flight where no DHS personnel were onboard. DHS did not direct DOD to remove him.
[...]
25. Following a criminal arrest in Georgia, he was arrested by ERO and placed in ICE custody on March 13, 2025.
26. On or about March 30, 2025, [REDACTED] was transferred to Camp VI at the NSGB in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
27. It is my understanding that on or about March 31, 2025, [REDACTED] was removed to El Salvador by the DOD on a flight with no DHS personnel onboard. DHS did not direct DOD to remove him.
[...]
50. On or about March 29, 2025, [REDACTED] was transferred to Camp VI at the NSGB in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
51. It is my understanding that on or about March 31, 2025, [REDACTED] was removed to El Salvador by the DOD on a flight with no DHS personnel onboard. DHS did not direct DOD to remove him.

- - - - - - - - -

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.72.0.pdf

Doc 72 (23 Apr 2025) Defendant's Response to the Court's April 10, 2025 ORDER

3. [REDACTED], a registered sex offender, was removed to El Salvador on March 31, 2025 “by the Department of Defense on a flight with no DHS personnel onboard.” Id. at ¶¶ 47, 51. DHS did not direct the Department of Defense to remove [REDACTED]. Id. at ¶ 51. The Department of Defense is not a defendant in this action.
4. [REDACTED], an identified Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang member, was removed to El Salvador on March 31, 2025, “by the Department of Defense on a flight with no DHS personnel onboard.” Id. at ¶¶ 22, 27. DHS did not direct the Department of Defense to remove [REDACTED]. Id. at ¶ 27. The Department of Defense is not a defendant in this action.
5. [REDACTED], an identified TdA chief, was removed to El Salvador on March 31, 2025, “by the Department of Defense on a flight where no DHS personnel onboard.” Id. at ¶¶ 16, 18. DHS did not direct the Department of Defense to remove [REDACTED]. Id. at ¶ 18. The Department of Defense is not a defendant in this action.
6. [REDACTED], an admitted TdA gang member, was removed to El Salvador on March 31, 2025, “by the Department of Defense on a flight where no DHS personnel onboard.” Id. at ¶¶ 10, 12. DHS did not direct the Department of Defense to remove [REDACTED]. Id. at ¶ 12. The Department of Defense is not a defendant in this action.
Accordingly, based on the attached declaration, DHS did not violate the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 34).