There is a national declaration regarding Venezuelans:
So please explain to me how the SC can do this if they have no jurisdiction where AEA is concerned?
No, it deals with a particular class i.e. Venezuelans in Northern Texas, this is not national injunction. I would say on the surface, its probably improper but I haven't read the lower case enough to see in detail.
Your question appears to be the same as Alito.
It is not clear that the Court had jurisdiction. The
All Writs Act does not provide an independent grant
of jurisdiction. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a) (permitting
writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of ” a court’s
jurisdiction); Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U. S. 529,
534–535 (1999) (“the express terms” of the All Writs
Act “confine the power of [a court] to issuing process
‘in aid of ’ its existing statutory jurisdiction; the Act
does not enlarge that jurisdiction” (quoting
§1651(a)). Therefore, this Court had jurisdiction
only if the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of the
applicants’ appeal, see §1254 (granting this Court
jurisdiction to review “[c]ases in the courts of ap-
peals”), and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction
only if the supposed order that the applicants ap-
pealed amounted to the denial of a preliminary in-
junction. See §1292(a)(1).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf
Basically, the first two Supreme Court orders were okayish imo, now we're getting into FantasyLand.... they're trying to slow everything down even though they have no jurisdiction or authority. If the habeas is on an individual the lower court would most likely have jurisdiction as to judicially reviewing.
These particular issues are not a part of the other suits as a correct habeas was not filed.
Although the Court provided class-wide relief, the 5Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)
ALITO , J., dissenting District Court never certified a class, and this Court
has never held that class relief may be sought in a habeas proceeding.
I would say we are well on our way to ignoring them in the future, as they are using it as a political tool. We'll see how it plays out. The Supreme Court is trying to use a class to stop removals but there is no history of that being used for habeas and for good reason.
None of those guys are coming back.
So please explain to me how the SC can do this if they have no jurisdiction where AEA is concerned?
I never said that, I said pre-removal the only thing that might be available is habeas.... the Gracia case does not involve a habeas, the national injunction case was originally a habeas but purposely filed in the wrong venue. The case we are talking about, a habeas was filed in northern texas, there are other problems here as well though i.e. class.... basically they are trying to delay.
Basically, there is limited paths to remedy prior to removal, habeas is one... if you know of another path... I am all ears. In your Gracia case, the court has jurisdiction of the initial proceedings but most likely lost personal jurisdiction of the subject because he has been removed. His legal status has already been determined via immigration process, that isn't going to change.
www.wbaltv.com
