4 ms·

TL;DR: - They are allowed to use the AEA to arrest and deport foreign criminals - The Supreme Court unanimously believes all detainees are entitled to judicia

TL;DR: - They are allowed to use the AEA to arrest and deport foreign criminals - The Supreme Court unanimously believes all detainees are entitled to judicial review and a court date as part of the detainment process - Any existing cases of rights violations needs to be prosecuted in the district court where the detainment occurs, not in the DC court. - Most of the dissent is that ruling was rushed and changing the location of the suits was unnecessary. Sotomayor: > 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.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>They are allowed to use the AEA to arrest and deport foreign criminals They did not reach the point of ruling for against the use of the AEA in these circumstances. >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.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> rights violations needs to be prosecuted in the district court where the detainment occurs Where the detainees are. Not where they were detained.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

>They are allowed to use the AEA to arrest and deport foreign criminals They did not reach the point of ruling for against the use of the AEA in these circumstances. >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.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> rights violations needs to be prosecuted in the district court where the detainment occurs Where the detainees are. Not where they were detained.