3 ms·

It's only binding in that district. So here's how the loophole works. There are 12 courts of appeals. You (ICE) does a bad thing. (renditions a US citizen to a

It's only binding in that district. So here's how the loophole works. There are 12 courts of appeals. You (ICE) does a bad thing. (renditions a US citizen to an El Salvador concentration camp without due process) You get sued, appeal it to that court of appeals. Let's say it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, let's say you lose. You take the L and move on. You never do the bad thing in the 9th circuit again: that decision is binding. Then you do it again in a different circuit. Let's say you do the bad thing in Texas, where the 9th circuit decision was not binding. Let's say you win this time. Now the 5th circuit is your playground. From now on, every time you arrest someone in the 9th circuit, you put them on an express flight to anywhere in the 5th district within an hour or so of arresting them, before they can get a lawyer to talk to a judge. The precedent that matters is the 5th circuit precedent, where the detainee is right now, not the 9th district (or anywhere else) where they were detained. Because the Supreme Court has now ruled that this is a lower court problem, they've effectively blocked anyone from ever getting justice ever again.

goodluckchuck 1y ago
[flagged]
- sylos 1y ago
  If some guy on hacker news can think of it, you know the lawyers working with the doj/ice have.
- acdha 1y ago
  It’s easy to believe because they’re already doing similar things. The best publicized case was Rümeysa Öztürk, whose student visa was silently canceled over her exercise of protected 1st amendment rights. Normally, if there was a question about a visa they could handle the entire process in Massachusetts, which has a massive federal presence and where immigration cases have been handled without issues since about as long as we’ve had immigration law. Instead, the squad which abducted her off the street quickly took her through New Hampshire and Vermont on the way to Louisiana. There’s no reason to spend so much money on someone who isn’t a threat to anyone other than the Israeli government’s PR department unless the goal is to get them into a friendlier district before a judge can stop it.
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
No, the way this works is, now you have a circuit split (the 9th says one thing, the 5th says the opposite). So when the person who lost in the 5th circuit appeals, the Supreme Court takes it, and whatever they decide is binding on both the 5th and 9th circuits (and everyone else).
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > the Supreme Court takes it This is not guaranteed. They don't have to take up a circuit split. They could just… leave it. Several are unresolved as we speak; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split#Examples_of_existing_circuit_splits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split#Examples_of_exis... Which leaves the Fifth Circuit a permanent loophole.
  - robocat 1y ago
    Lazy functional programming, human style.
diogocp 1y ago
There is no loophole. Defendants in the 5th circuit can appeal to the Supreme Court. That is one of the main roles of the Supreme Court: resolving circuit splits.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- theptip 1y ago
  In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again? The 9th has nothing to do with an immigration hearing in the 5th, the individual’s personal history is irrelevant here. Matter of Rahman, 20 I&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992) seems to cover this. (IANAL)
  - nradov 1y ago
    The parties involved can always petition the Supreme Court. They're free to take up any case even if there isn't a split between lower courts.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      They're also free not to take up the case, and leave the circuit split unresolved. If you want to leave the loophole open, that's a win.
  - _zagj 1y ago
    Because it conflicts with the holding in another circuit, called a "circuit split," which is one of the most common causes of the Supreme Court choosing to hear a case. The Supreme Court doesn't want forum shopping.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again? A circuit split on an issue is one of the factors that traditionally weighs in favor of the Supreme Court hearing it, in the interests of uniformity of the law. If the Supreme Court likes the 5th Circuit rule, they take the case it make it the rule, period.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> It's only binding in that district. No, district court decisions are not binding precedent, not even in the district.

goodluckchuck 1y ago

[flagged]

sylos 1y ago
If some guy on hacker news can think of it, you know the lawyers working with the doj/ice have.
acdha 1y ago
It’s easy to believe because they’re already doing similar things. The best publicized case was Rümeysa Öztürk, whose student visa was silently canceled over her exercise of protected 1st amendment rights. Normally, if there was a question about a visa they could handle the entire process in Massachusetts, which has a massive federal presence and where immigration cases have been handled without issues since about as long as we’ve had immigration law. Instead, the squad which abducted her off the street quickly took her through New Hampshire and Vermont on the way to Louisiana. There’s no reason to spend so much money on someone who isn’t a threat to anyone other than the Israeli government’s PR department unless the goal is to get them into a friendlier district before a judge can stop it.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

No, the way this works is, now you have a circuit split (the 9th says one thing, the 5th says the opposite). So when the person who lost in the 5th circuit appeals, the Supreme Court takes it, and whatever they decide is binding on both the 5th and 9th circuits (and everyone else).

ceejayoz 1y ago
> the Supreme Court takes it This is not guaranteed. They don't have to take up a circuit split. They could just… leave it. Several are unresolved as we speak; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split#Examples_of_existing_circuit_splits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split#Examples_of_exis... Which leaves the Fifth Circuit a permanent loophole.
- robocat 1y ago
  Lazy functional programming, human style.

diogocp 1y ago

There is no loophole. Defendants in the 5th circuit can appeal to the Supreme Court. That is one of the main roles of the Supreme Court: resolving circuit splits.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
theptip 1y ago
In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again? The 9th has nothing to do with an immigration hearing in the 5th, the individual’s personal history is irrelevant here. Matter of Rahman, 20 I&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992) seems to cover this. (IANAL)
- nradov 1y ago
  The parties involved can always petition the Supreme Court. They're free to take up any case even if there isn't a split between lower courts.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    They're also free not to take up the case, and leave the circuit split unresolved. If you want to leave the loophole open, that's a win.
- _zagj 1y ago
  Because it conflicts with the holding in another circuit, called a "circuit split," which is one of the most common causes of the Supreme Court choosing to hear a case. The Supreme Court doesn't want forum shopping.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again? A circuit split on an issue is one of the factors that traditionally weighs in favor of the Supreme Court hearing it, in the interests of uniformity of the law. If the Supreme Court likes the 5th Circuit rule, they take the case it make it the rule, period.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> It's only binding in that district. No, district court decisions are not binding precedent, not even in the district.