Trump Ignores the Courts

[LSU-SIU]

Sounds like most habeas filings are (a) You can prove a claim to citizenship, (b) You are under aged and being held in an adult detention center, or (c) you have been held for over six months without deportation.

I suspect few of these would affect the AEA activities.

I think they could challenge the scope of the Proclamation specific to them. Basically, each person would have to separately file a habeas in the correct federal venue. I doubt many would get their habeas in time, and if not the avenue closes. For the American, the wrong if any can be made right by attempting to re-enter the country and use the immigration process. The only reason why all these lawyers jumped on this one was because they were judge shopping for a national injunction... nobody really cares about these people... not really.

I'm hoping the administration does a good job of limiting the scope of this, I wouldn't want an American caught up in this.

 

[EasternVol]

No, you claimed I was wrong about a fact. I asked you what fact I am wrong about, you still haven't provided a fact that I might be wrong about. I have no real facts to what you babbling about because I was not there... so when you say I am wrong about a fact... I need to know what that is.

I don't have a story, the only story I could have at this point is you're a TDS nut.

When you start babbling about "dictator" or similar without any real context, it makes you look like a freaking nut.

You've been told a few times and you keep ignoring it. So there's no point in telling you again.
Weren't you whining that anyone who used MAGA was a hysterical Trump hater? You know, reflexively falling back on 'TDS TDS' like Gomer saying 'citizen's arrest' is telling too. I don't recall calling him a dictator, but I'd say he'd enjoy being one. Most of us would.

 

[LSU-SIU]

You've been told a few times and you keep ignoring it. So there's no point in telling you again.
Weren't you whining that anyone who used MAGA was a hysterical Trump hater? You know, reflexively falling back on 'TDS TDS' like Gomer saying 'citizen's arrest' is telling too. I don't recall calling him a dictator, but I'd say he'd enjoy being one. Most of us would.

No, you haven't told me anything. You said I was wrong about a fact, what is the "fact"? Unless you can show a fact that the U.S. has admitted to or that a court has made finding to, its not a fact. But I don't even know what fact you are talking about, as you appear to be talking about your opinion.

falling back on 'TDS TDS'

Yes, but I give you the context of the why I believe you have TDS. You can use MAGA all you want, matter of fact, I recommend it... it shows everyone who the nuts are.

You claimed or implied Trump is a dictator and isn't giving due process, yet, you can't simply tell me what due process hasn't been given.

The Plaintiffs could have filed a habeas in the correct venue, but elected not to do that. Now, if they were ejected improperly, they can still re-enter the country and get additional due process on their legal status, if they are denied re-entry.

What other due process is there? If its available, go ahead and use it.

Edit: If an American gets caught up in this, I would have no problem with the person challenging their legal status under Law as to their status and having an injunction as to that particular individual. (the form of that I wouldn't know at this time... just a light theory)

 

[LouderVol]

What is the due process expectation now? And in what court system can they file in? It's my understanding that immigration law is a completely different system than criminal and civil?

And the SCOTUS has already ruled that the use of the Alien Enemies Act is not judge-reviewable. What is the due process expectation here?

they have to be informed of the date and the process, and given a chance to appeal.

whatever federal "local" jurisdiction they are. their issue with the Bossaberg case was it was a guy detained in Texas appealing in Washington DC. there would have been nothing stopped him from appealing in Texas.

yes there is a separate set of judges, but my understanding is that the areas they serve are the "typical" federal zones.

they ruled that this specific case where the person had already been deported is not reviewable because he was no longer under the US's control. it is reviewable up until deportation while they are under US control.

the last is the loophole that Trump and LSU want to do, just deport them before any of the process has a chance to play out, so that way there is nothing to hold the government accountable for, because its already too late.

 

[MemphisVol77]

the last is the loophole that Trump and LSU want to do, just deport them before any of the process has a chance to play out, so that way there is nothing to hold the government accountable for, because its already too late.

I think LSU's point, however abrasive his delivery may be, is that the plaintiffs created the only verifiable loophole by filing in the wrong venue.

TRUMP v. J. G. G. . Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a provisionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation.

As I interpret that, Boasberg tried to rule against the governments interpretation of AEA on behalf of the detainees without habeas. SCOTUS rolled their eyes.

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.

SCOTUS is saying the detainees can claim habeas and argue that the AEA doesn't apply to them, but they can't claim AEA doesn't apply to them without claiming habeas.

For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.

Boasberg pissed SCOTUS off filing TRO's without habeas claims. SCOTUS knows that Boasberg knows......, that the detainees need habeas to have a claim to due process. Boasberg also knew he had no jurisdiction with habeas claims.

removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay.

SCOTUS said F-Trump and any future loophole he thinks he might have, but Boasberg and the District of Columbia didn't go about this with any moral high ground.

LSU's point is valid. The detainees that got deported could have received due process had they filed in the proper district.

 

[LSU-SIU]

LSU's point is valid. The detainees that got deported could have received due process had they filed in the proper district.

Well said.

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs actually got the relief requested from the original Habeas (although incorrectly and purposefully filed in the wrong venue) as they have been released from U.S. custody. So, not only did the Plaintiffs on purpose not file correctly, not only were the Plaintiffs judge shopping, and even though the government had no legal obligation to release them, the U.S. government released them.

Nobody is pointing to any injustice here in any way that I can see. To add injury to insult, many of the lawyers threw their clients under the bus by admitting to additional crimes, at least it appears that way.

They not only got all the due process coming to them, they got additional relief that wasn't even necessary on the part of the government as they on purpose doomed their own filings.

 

[Orangeslice13]

What is the due process expectation now? And in what court system can they file in? It's my understanding that immigration law is a completely different system than criminal and civil?

And the SCOTUS has already ruled that the use of the Alien Enemies Act is not judge-reviewable. What is the due process expectation here?

Very damn little changes with the ruling. The difference is they have to say that they were doing what they were doing.
Back to SOP.

Essentially

 

[LSU-SIU]

Supreme Court says Trump administration must facilitate return of deported Maryland man

It appears the USSC is intervening in the following case, in this case the government position is the man was incorrectly sent there, but once he is there... he is out of the jurisdiction. (I have not read whatever the Supreme Court has published, I don't see it on the website yet)

To me for the lower court (and the USSC) to actually have jurisdiction and authority, they would have to completely alter the United States i.e. U.S. Constitution.

It would seem like the solution is pretty simple on this one, the guy's home country should be facilitating with El Salvador (but it looks like it is El Salvador).... why is the U.S. involved at this point? If he was seeking asylum than he should have applied before coming to the U.S. at the first country.

The better solution would be to just drop them off in Antarctica.

I am a little confused by what the USSC is saying here, the lower court and themselves lack jurisdiction at this point per the ruling the other day. It just sounds like, try and get him back pretty please.... and I see nothing wrong with that if that is what the executive branch wants to do.

Edit: Found it.

The application is granted in part and denied in part,
subject to the direction of this order. Due to the adminis-
trative stay issued by THE CHIEF J USTICE, the deadline im-
posed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent,
the Government’s emergency application is effectively
granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is
no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order
remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The
order properly requires the Government to “facilitate”
Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to
ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had
he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended
scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order
is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s
authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,
with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive
Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the
Government should be prepared to share what it can con-
cerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further
steps

So, I would have to go and look at the case, the district court could have jurisdiction of the underlying case but has basically lost any control of the subject, and has no real authority to order anything at this point.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Supreme Court says Trump administration must facilitate return of deported Maryland man

It appears the USSC is intervening in the following case, in this case the government position is the man was incorrectly sent there, but once he is there... he is out of the jurisdiction. (I have not read whatever the Supreme Court has published, I don't see it on the website yet)

To me for the lower court (and the USSC) to actually have jurisdiction and authority, they would have to completely alter the United States i.e. U.S. Constitution.

It would seem like the solution is pretty simple on this one, the guy's home country should be facilitating with El Salvador (but it looks like it is El Salvador).... why is the U.S. involved at this point? If he was seeking asylum than he should have applied before coming to the U.S. at the first country.

The better solution would be to just drop them off in Antarctica.

I am a little confused by what the USSC is saying here, the lower court and themselves lack jurisdiction at this point per the ruling the other day. It just sounds like, try and get him back pretty please.... and I see nothing wrong with that if that is what the executive branch wants to do.

Edit: Found it.



So, I would have to go and look at the case, the district court could have jurisdiction of the underlying case but has basically lost any control of the subject, and has no real authority to order anything at this point.

So, the guy is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, we sent him back to El Salvador, and the court wants us to bring him back?

 

[MemphisVol77]

“The determination that the respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence”-Judge Elizabeth Kessler https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.1_1.pdf

He was granted an order preventing deportation to his native country over fears he'll face persecution from the gangs according to LSU's link.

I'm curious as to what evidence compelled the immigration court to grant that order. Was that before, after, and/or the same immigration court that determined he was a gang member?

So, the guy is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, we sent him back to El Salvador, and the court wants us to bring him back?

I'm not arguing that he wasn't deported erroneously, but I don't know what to make of this case.

 

[LSU-SIU]

So, the guy is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, we sent him back to El Salvador, and the court wants us to bring him back?

That is the short version. I actually don't see too much of a problem with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, meaning the U.S. admits they didn't mean to send him there and the USSC is saying pretty please help. The Sotomayor statement being joined by Kagan and Jackson (the usual idiots) is more akin to telling the world they have no idea of how the basic of the Republic work.

Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson really have no legal knowledge to be even be running traffic court.

I would say the guy could still have remedy as to his legal status, the problem there is what is the U.S.'s position on the matter.... which has probably and rightful changed as to his status. I would say El Salavador is a much safer place to live at this point than the U.S.... but that is a whole other matter. Hard to see how an injustice was done here as a generalization.

 

[Orangeslice13]

So, the guy is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, we sent him back to El Salvador, and the court wants us to bring him back?

Not exactly.
They want us to send him somewhere else besides the place he’s seeking asylum from. The error is where he was sent, not that he was deported

 

[jmacvols1]

seems to be some discrepancy among people over Supreme Court ruling...



==================================================================

Billy Binion
@billybinion



The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Abrego Garcia's deportation was "illegal" and that the government now had to "facilitate [his] release." Why are you lying to the public? The decision is public. Do you have *any* shame?



Eat Me Fu@eatmefu


No it didn’t. It said the court wasn’t clear on what it wanted and that the president has the authority in foreign policy and immigration enforcement.

Mz Barnes
@SchnauzerMom40

NO, the government already conceded that they deported him to the El Salvador prison by mistake, but that he STILL was to be deported. They will fly him back to Texas, and then immediately deport him to Venezuela. He just went to the wrong place (even tho he’s FROM El Salvador) The guy used his “gang affiliation” as his reasoning for not wanting to go back to El Salvador. You people are BEYOND STUPID & IGNORANT. Can you READ?? Or do you just take what CNN & MSDNC tell you as FACT?

 

[LSU-SIU]

seems to be some discrepancy among people over Supreme Court ruling...

I would say he is more correct (miller), they are saying the lower court probably has no real authority here but...

They are saying, pretty please to the executive branch... try and come up with something the lower court can work with. For the most part, it doesn't seem like an injustice as happened as a generalization here.

 

[jmacvols1]

I would say he is more correct (miller), they are saying the lower court probably has no real authority here but...

They are saying, pretty please to the executive branch... try and come up with something the lower court can work with. For the most part, it doesn't seem like an injustice as happened as a generalization here.

I haven't seen the ruling myself but some are saying the SC is saying he is to be deported but to his correct home country of Venzeuela

 

[LouderVol]

I think LSU's point, however abrasive his delivery may be, is that the plaintiffs created the only verifiable loophole by filing in the wrong venue.

As I interpret that, Boasberg tried to rule against the governments interpretation of AEA on behalf of the detainees without habeas. SCOTUS rolled their eyes.

SCOTUS is saying the detainees can claim habeas and argue that the AEA doesn't apply to them, but they can't claim AEA doesn't apply to them without claiming habeas.

Boasberg pissed SCOTUS off filing TRO's without habeas claims. SCOTUS knows that Boasberg knows......, that the detainees need habeas to have a claim to due process. Boasberg also knew he had no jurisdiction with habeas claims.

SCOTUS said F-Trump and any future loophole he thinks he might have, but Boasberg and the District of Columbia didn't go about this with any moral high ground.

LSU's point is valid. The detainees that got deported could have received due process had they filed in the proper district.

I literally covered that in the quote you responded to. I never said otherwise, you are interpreting both mine and LSU's stances incorrectly.

"whatever federal "local" jurisdiction they are. their issue with the Bossaberg case was it was a guy detained in Texas appealing in Washington DC. there would have been nothing stopped him from appealing in Texas."

and LSU never said they COULD have had due process. his whole stance has been the admin was totally in the right, and that the Supreme Court just vindicated them.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I haven't seen the ruling myself but some are saying the SC is saying he is to be deported but to his correct home country of Venzeuela

He was is from El Salvador, the issue is the AEA Proclamation involved gang members from Venezuela, further there was a previous order for him not to be deported due to gang activity in El Salvador that shouldn't be a problem anymore. Regardless, it would seem like once he was ejected that ends it to a degree. If the administration believes he should be due from the gangs in El Salvador than they could try and work with the lower court, unfortunately the 3 stupid justices may have to made an example of... they should have shut their traps.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I literally covered that in the quote you responded to. I never said otherwise, you are interpreting both mine and LSU's stances incorrectly.

"whatever federal "local" jurisdiction they are. their issue with the Bossaberg case was it was a guy detained in Texas appealing in Washington DC. there would have been nothing stopped him from appealing in Texas."

and LSU never said they COULD have had due process. his whole stance has been the admin was totally in the right, and that the Supreme Court just vindicated them.

They could have filed a Habeas in the correct venue to obtain additional process, absent that... there was no additional process available to them that anyone has pointed out in context. The court simply lacked jurisdiction.

Its not complex but you keep on like you do in every discussion... make something a toddler could understand into some strange 3d chess match.

If I was representing them... I would tell them to stop breaking the law.

 

[Orange_Crush]

They could have filed a Habeas in the correct venue to obtain additional process, absent that... there was no additional process available to them that anyone has pointed out in context. The court simply lacked jurisdiction.

Its not complex but you keep on like you do in every discussion... make something a toddler could understand into some strange 3d chess match.

If I was representing them... I would tell them to stop breaking the law.

Did the SCOTUS mention NATIONAL injunctions? i.e. Habeas in the correct court for the INDIVIDUAL claiming it, vs putting a stop to ALL deportations, as was attempted.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Frankly, the district court in this case issue an order in one hand, take the proverbial crap in the other and see which gets full first.

I'd write a letter to the El Salvadorian govt that says "Oops. We make a clerical error. Would you please, pretty please send your citizen back to us?"

And when they refuse, show the letter and response to the judge and say "we did what we were asked." A district judge nor SCOTUS cannot, I believe, order the Executive branch to engage specific actions within the realm of foreign affairs. Too bad, so sad.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Did the SCOTUS mention NATIONAL injunctions? i.e. Habeas in the correct court for the INDIVIDUAL claiming it, vs putting a stop to ALL deportations, as was attempted.

yeah. This one is at least more isolated. At least it involves an administrative case that a court would normally have jurisdiction over and no attempt at some type of national injunction without jurisdiction and authority. I still have a question or two here... but I think the Supreme Court is being somewhat reasonable other than the 3 idiots. The 3 idiots are actually making people less safe as the administration might have to play hardball with them now.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[LSU-SIU]

Its actually two fold at least.

1. I guess the lower court order doesn't say he must be returned, if I go by the language in the USSC order.

"the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador"

2. If the intend for him to be returned as well, that might be problematic depending on what the administration believes his status to be. If he is an illegal that shouldn't be in the U.S., under no situation should they help, assist, or allow him to return as he is not legally able to enter the U.S.

This is ignoring the fact that none of these courts have the authority in any real manner at this point. I even think the lower case might have to be dismissed per the ruling the other day as to a lack of jurisdiction at this point. He could possibly challenge his legal status if he tried to re-enter but nobody claims he isn't illegal.

If I were the U.S. I would probably in good faith send a letter to El Salvador that the individual is free to go from their stand point.

 

[jmacvols1]

Its actually two fold at least.

1. I guess the lower court order doesn't say he must be returned, if I go by the language in the USSC order.



2. If the intend for him to be returned as well, that might be problematic depending on what the administration believes his status to be. If he is an illegal that shouldn't be in the U.S., under no situation should they help, assist, or allow him to return as he is not legally able to enter the U.S.

This is ignoring the fact that none of these courts have the authority in any real manner at this point. I even think the lower case might have to be dismissed per the ruling the other day as to a lack of jurisdiction at this point. He could possibly challenge his legal status if he tried to re-enter but nobody claims he isn't illegal.

If I were the U.S. I would probably in good faith send a letter to El Salvador that the individual is free to go from their stand point.

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
1h
No it did not. It said it must take steps to release him from custody.

"The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador..."

Nowhere in the Order does it even hint he must be brought back to the US.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
1h
No it did not. It said it must take steps to release him from custody.

"The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador..."

Nowhere in the Order does it even hint he must be brought back to the US.

Quit lying your followers and readers.

They are actually saying it or hinting at it in what they wrote, they lack "authority". What should be a concern is the 3 Stooges that think they are the King which might force the administration to play hardball when in fact they believe an error occurred in part.

My take, the order is fine as it really doesn't do anything... unless the administration really wants to work with the lower court on a remedy. The added statements by the Three Stooges is a different matter.

The Supreme Court is saying to the lower court, you're going to have to do better.... and pretty please executive branch come up with a viable path here.

If I was the U.S. I would send a letter to El Salvador that the individual is free to go from the U.S.'s stand point and there are no active warrants for his arrest.

Edit: It might be confusing from the stand point that the U.S. Supreme Court said an APA claim on the basically the same matter lacks jurisdiction, but I am not willing to say that is the case here... .just yet.