Let’s not get carried away - per the article and the opinion, this ruling was only about whether or not the deportation could be subject to judicial review in of itself. It was not a ruling on deportations or even this specific deportation.
The headline paints a different picture than what the ruling was actually about.
Thanks for the clarification.
Well, it reveals that I didn’t read it in it’s entirety.
Thanks for calling me on it, even though you didn’t actually
word it that way. It was reasoned.