3 ms·
Here is what the government is arguing: * They can grab anyone off the street and send them to a labor camp in a foreign country even if they have no connectio
by apical_dendrite 2y ago
Here is what the government is arguing:
* They can grab anyone off the street and send them to a labor camp in a foreign country even if they have no connection to that country.
* If you want to challenge them in court, you have to do it in the location where the person is being held. They don't have to tell you where that is, and they can move the person to a venue where the courts will be favorable to them. They are moving people thousands of miles to Louisiana or Texas as quickly as possible.
* If they can get you out of the country before you can get into court to challenge them, too bad. The courts can do nothing to get you back, and the government certainly isn't going to try.
* You cannot challenge their decision that a gang or criminal organization constitutes an invasion by a foreign country, no matter how absurd it may be.
* You might be able to challenge whether the person is a member of that organization (originally they said you couldn't but they may be wavering on this point), but they are going to do everything they can to get you out of the country before you can get into court to challenge them.
* They don't have to tell the courts even the most basic publicly available information, like when flights departed.
As a practical matter, there is very little stopping them from grabbing anyone, even an American citizen, and sending them to a labor camp in El Salvador. Is it illegal? Sure - but they are making it almost impossible to get restitution in court.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThats not how I read the ruling: >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.
- cmurf 2y agoThe implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise. The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this. I respectfully dissent.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoapical_dendrite is saying what the government's claims are, not what the ruling says.
- cmurf 2y agoThey're also punishing DOJ lawyers for telling the truth in court, and refusing to obfuscate. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/05/doj-suspends-attorney-critical-deportation-mistake/82957050007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/05/doj-...
- s1artibartfast 2y agoNot a fan of judge Jackson and Sotomayor, but I can't buy any theory that assumes they are throwing Trump a bone.