3 ms·

From Sotomayor’s dissent: The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the stre

From Sotomayor’s dissent: The 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.

rayiner 2y ago
The dissent’s point is disingenuous because the majority held that the proper vehicle for challenging the detention is a habeas petition, and that detainees must have the opportunity to file one: > 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. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). > 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.
- dataflow 2y ago
  >> The implication of the Government’s position is > The dissent’s point is disingenuous Might you be confusing the government's position with the majority's opinion? The sentence quoted above from the dissent is saying that the government's position has {bad implication}, not that the majority's opinion has {bad implication}.

rayiner 2y ago

The dissent’s point is disingenuous because the majority held that the proper vehicle for challenging the detention is a habeas petition, and that detainees must have the opportunity to file one: > 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. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). > 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.

dataflow 2y ago
>> The implication of the Government’s position is > The dissent’s point is disingenuous Might you be confusing the government's position with the majority's opinion? The sentence quoted above from the dissent is saying that the government's position has {bad implication}, not that the majority's opinion has {bad implication}.