Posted on 06/23/2025 7:15:40 PM PDT by blueyon
US District Judge Brian Murphy on Monday evening defied the US Supreme Court and said his order barring deportation of illegal aliens to South Sudan remains in effect.
In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump Administration to resume deporting illegal aliens to ‘third-party’ countries.
The Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration’s emergency application and paused Judge Brian Murphy’s order blocking the third-country removals.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
No, the Gateway Pundit. Think of as Not the Bee but with no humor and twice as much fiction.
“How many Bunker Busters does Judge Murphy have?”
I’d like to see him have one - shoved right up his bung hole.
Would make a good bumper sticker if a little shorter .I'm steelin this.
No. Hog tie his ass, lasso him to the rear bumper of a pickup, and drag him through a cactus patch. If he survives - throw his seditious ass into a damp dark jail cell, with a bucket to crap in, and feed him moldy bread and dish water.
That’s why we call them Massholes.
LOL!
What is wrong with Roberts? Why doesn’t he stop this crap?
Have you ever noticed that democrats HATE our Republican style of govt until they need to use it to get something they want?
Because Roberts is part of the PROBLEM!
Ain’t that the truth!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 24A1153
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. D.V.D., ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[June 23, 2025]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is granted. The April 18, 2025, preliminary injunction of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 25–cv–10676, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and dis position of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of the Court.
Cited Sotomayor dissent at 11-12:
Besides the facially absurd contention that the Executive is “irreparabl[y]” harmed any time a court orders it temporarily to refrain from doing something it would like to do, see Application for Stay of Injunction 37, the Government has identified no irreparable harm from the challenged preliminary injunction. Instead, the Government locates the source of its injury in the District Court’s efforts to provide relief to the class members in South Sudan. Id., at 37–39. That argument is misguided. First, the District Court’s remedial orders are not properly before this Court because the Government has not appealed them, nor sought a stay pending a forthcoming appeal.
ORDER of Judge Murphy:
176Jun 23, 2025
Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER ENTERED. Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion, Dkt. 174, is DENIED as unnecessary, subject to the below. The Court's May 21, 2025 Order on Remedy, Dkt. 119, remains in full force and effect, notwithstanding today's stay of the Preliminary Injunction. DHS v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153, slip op. at 12 (S. Ct. Jun. 23, 2025) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) ("[T]he District Court's remedial orders [were] not properly before [the Supreme] Court because the Government has not appealed them, nor sought a stay pending a forthcoming appeal."). For the avoidance of doubt, and to the extent Plaintiffs N.M. and D.D. are indeed subject to third-country removal, see Dkt. 175 at 5-7, N.M. and D.D. are included among the individuals referenced in the May 21, 2025 Order. (BAH) Modified on 6/23/2025 (PK). (Entered: 06/23/2025)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.119.0_1.pdf
Cited Order on Remedy, Dkt 119 (heading omitted):
ORDER ON REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONMURPHY, J.
As set forth in today’s hearing and at Dkt. 118, the Court found that Defendants violated the Court’s Preliminary Injunction. Having considered the arguments of counsel, the Court ORDERS the following remedy for Defendants’ violations of the Preliminary Injunction: Each of the six individuals must be given a reasonable fear interview in private, with the opportunity for the individual to have counsel of their choosing present during the interview, either in-person or remotely, at the individual’s choosing. Each individual must be afforded access to counsel that is commensurate with the access that they would have received had these procedures occurred within the United States prior to their deportation, including remote access where in-person access would otherwise be available. Each individual must also be afforded the name and telephone number of class counsel, as well as access to a phone, interpreter, and technology for the confidential transfer of documents that is commensurate with the access they would receive were they in DHS custody within United States borders.
Each individual, along with class counsel, must be given no fewer than 72-hours’ notice of the scheduled time for each reasonable fear interview. Should any individual raise a fear with respect to deportation to the third country that DHS determines falls short of “reasonable fear,” the individual must be provided meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of 15 days, to seek to move to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal. During that 15-day period, the individual must remain within the custody or control of DHS, and must be afforded access to counsel that is commensurate with the access they would be afforded if they were seeking to move to reopen from within the United States’ borders. Defendants must provide status reports every seven days as to all six individuals. Should any individual move to reopen, the parties must also immediately provide a status report, and continue providing status reports every seven days thereafter, on the status of the motion to reopen.
DHS, in its discretion, may elect to provide this process to the six individuals either within the United States—should it choose to return them to the United States—or abroad, if at all relevant times DHS retains custody and control over the individuals in conditions commensurate to those the individuals would be housed in were they still in DHS’s custody within the United States.
This Order reflects a remedy, in light of the Court’s finding of a violation of its Preliminary Injunction, that has been narrowly tailored in accordance with principles of equity. The Court cautions Defendants that this remedy should not be construed as setting forth a course of conduct that would constitute compliance with the Preliminary Injunction, and the Court is not—in ordering this remedy—making any findings or conclusions that compliance with these processes before deportation would have satisfied the requirements of its Preliminary Injunction in the first instance.
So Ordered.
/s/ Brian E. Murphy
Brian E. Murphy
Judge, United States District CourtDated: May 21, 2025
Here is a transcript from a screen image (bolding mine):
Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs emergency Motion, Dkt. 174, is DENIED as unnecessary, subject to the below. The Courts May 21, 2025 Order on Remedy, Dkt. 119, remains in full force and effect, notwithstanding todays stay of the Preliminary Injunction. DHS v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153, slip op. At 12 (S. Ct. Jun. 23, 2025) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) ([T]he District Courts remedial orders [were] not properly before [the Supreme] Court because the Government has not appealed them, or sought a stay pending a forthcoming appeal.). For the avoidance of doubt, and to the extend Plaintiffs N.M. And D.D. Are indeed subject to third-country removal, see Dkt. 175 at 5-7, N.M. And D.D. Are included among the individuals referenced in the May 21, 2025 Order. (BAH) (Entered: 06/23/2025)
What do you make of this? It looks like Murphy cited Justice Sotomayor's dissent as his justification, despite the assertion that the Supreme Court intended to stay both rulings even though they only mentioned the April ruling, since both rulings were essentially the same thing.
-PJ
Presidential election losers post 1960?
PAGING John Roberts!! Please pick up the white courtesy phone.
No Kings? Well, it sure sounds like that judge is acting like one.
One hopes for a sane ruling — a high bar in the era of the Roberts court — that will rein in all of the rogue lower courts
This also places — again this could be copium — a more favorable light (from the president’s POV) on Justice Roberts’ comments about not attempting to impeach judges but allowing the courts to complete the review process.
Roberts might have been saying the proverbial “hold my beer we’ve got this” to the administrative and legislative branches. Again, in a sane world.
Any chief justice wants to be sure the INFERIOR courts realize that they are, in fact, inferior. Otherwise there’s no reason for a SUPREME court.
Again, in a sane world whose federal judges know and interpret the Constitution in a sane and restrained manner.
Finally to the Justice Amy haters: Justice Barrett is a VAST upgrade over the vicious baby killer.
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.