This is why tonight's decision is an absolute joke. The five justices had the gall to suggest that they were somehow charting a middle ground by holding (in THIS procedural posture?) that people must be given a "reasonable time" to file a habeas lawsuit - AS IF EVERYONE IN DETENTION CAN DO THAT? - ThreadSky

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social • 6 days ago

This is why tonight's decision is an absolute joke. The five justices had the gall to suggest that they were somehow charting a middle ground by holding (in THIS procedural posture?) that people must be given a "reasonable time" to file a habeas lawsuit - AS IF EVERYONE IN DETENTION CAN DO THAT?

Reposted from Jacob Schriner-Briggs

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. What happens when the government ships people off to international confinement? If Trump alleges you're an Alien Enemy, ships you off to a black site, and then renounces any say over your continued captivity, can the writ even run?

Comments

spotandmae.bsky.social•6 days ago

#GOPDictatorshipendorsedbyRoberts5

randomsurvivor.bsky.social•6 days ago

But isn't it true that in order to file a habeas lawsuit there has to be jurisdiction? We have seen in the Ozturk case that finding jurisdiction wasn't that easy since she was constantly moved from one State to another.

mikemusson.bsky.social•6 days ago

And what is the consequence if the trump regime just ships people off anyway?

abw56.bsky.social•6 days ago

It's starting to feel like anybody concerned about being whisked away to El Salvador will need a habeas corpus lawsuit pre-written and ready to be filed at a moment's notice, in the same way that people get a DNR or their will written in advance.

In other words, no protection for the poor.

sausalitocheese.bsky.social•6 days ago

There is no valid statutory basis for disappearing people, regardless of other questions. This is not a decision based on law.

shauna7510.bsky.social•6 days ago

They are doing this to make it look like their orders aren't being ignored? So they can pretend and not have to admit the administration is willing to blow the constitution to smithereens? Or have WWIII with the American people? So they don't have to admit they are redundant?

katemhs27.bsky.social•6 days ago

https://secured.heritage.org/the-heritage-doge-survey/

doctorcarrie.bsky.social•6 days ago

The seemingly flaws in SCOTUS ruling is the point. They have sided with Trump. They have decided he is king. They are using the cudgel of legal bureaucracy against the people Trump deems unworthy, which can simply be a matter of semantics and rhetoric.

bchadhill.bsky.social•6 days ago

Procedural limitations. Jurisdictional requirements. Limits on Article III standing. Statutory prerequisites. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It's all just mumbo jumbo to let the oh-so-noble Justices sanction authoritarian abuses of fundamental constitutional rights w/o having to admit that's what they're doing.

leonfarqhuar.bsky.social•6 days ago

Disappointing ruling but kinda expected given that the court seems to leave its most egregious decisions for its shadow/emergency docket. I haven’t been able to see a copy but it sounds like they are pretending give people like him due process but not really because you probably need a lawyer…

leonfarqhuar.bsky.social•6 days ago

On-call at the time of your detention to write up a quick habeas petition on the spot so you can take advantage of what little opportunity you would have to challenge your detention. Almost no one in these proceedings has an attorney because they can’t afford it. Best justice money can buy, I guess?

shuchancellor.online•6 days ago

hey, as long as the rule of law exists *in theory* right?

hasted.bsky.social•6 days ago

Practically speaking, they are going to get notice they are being deported pursuant to AEA and perhaps 72 hours or a week or whatever to file a petition for a writ of habeas before deportation. No US citizens will get mistakenly deported like this. Immigrants can still hire lawyers as usual.

jarekfa.bsky.social•6 days ago

Shouldn't the process be "Immigration court"?

smosle.bsky.social•6 days ago

Also, does the opportunity to file habeas come in the jurisdiction where a person is taken into custody--or can the gov't just always forum shop by rushing to transfer the person to TX or LA first?

zahrsaid.bsky.social•6 days ago

It seems like they’ve thought a great deal about how to optimize for lack of transparency, too. The way they picked up Rumeysa and had her over state lines within the hour, for instance, and out of New England on her way to Jena within (if memory serves) a matter of hours… this is the master plan.

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

those questions are being decided in the Ozturk and Khalil cases-- i imagine other cases will further develop that doctrine. The short answer is: if you get the petition in really fast you might be ok, but if you wait a while, you're likely stuck in TX/LA.

smosle.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yes--seems like notice being demanded by SCOTUS should have to be provided where a detainee is taken into custody (usually where they live). Otherwise, govt will move every detainee to TX or LA before providing such notice, ensuring every person in U.S. is subject to TX and LA law

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

It's truly ghastly how little information people arrested by ICE actually get. Setting all this AEA business aside they don't even usually get told why they are being removed for many days, sometimes weeks. It's very different than the criminal process of arrest->bail hearing->indictment.

smosle.bsky.social•6 days ago

Thx so much for this explanation--and work you do at the ACLU.

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

My understanding is that there are many people who are already in immigration detention who would have to be given notice now that they are subject to this order. The previous notice given (attached in the record of this case) specifically said "YOU DO NOT GET A HEARING TO FIGHT THIS"

gripnoir.bsky.social•6 days ago

You're presuming a Supreme Court good faith review.

momo663.bsky.social•6 days ago

Exactly. Convince the worst prison will facilitate these prisoners rights.

experimental22.bsky.social•6 days ago

It is a Nazi court.

keithlabrecque.bsky.social•6 days ago

There is no middle ground - there is right and wrong and increasingly, and with increasing measures of magnitude, Roberts and his R court is wrong.

nwbuckeye.bsky.social•6 days ago

This is a serious question, given I'm not an attorney: What prevents the government (under today's ruling) from capturing me, a 3rd generation American citizen, off the street, whisking me off to Texas, and then flown to El Salvador if the government claims I'm a foreign gang member?

sotekprime.bsky.social•6 days ago

If the ruling actually is followed, you would be allowed to present a habeas petition in Texas where you assert you are a citizen, at which point they would be forced to release you.

Of course, given this admin, I expect that instead the planes are already in the air...

peltast1.bsky.social•6 days ago

No, there's nothing in the ruling to say that you must be allowed to make a habeas petition in Texas. The government and court position is that you can only petition where you physically are, and ICE is free to move you anywhere they like and as often as they like.

sotekprime.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yes, but at least in theory this means they can't deport you until they stop and let your petition catch up. (Also, it's established that once you petition for habeas in the place you are at, you cannot be moved to escape the petition. That's why they move people fast; to force it to start in TX/LA)

ncallaway.bsky.social•6 days ago

Well, important question, do you manage to file a habeas petition in the correct jurisdiction before they got you onto a plane to El Salvador?

Trick question, because they put you on the plane anyway, and will refuse to bring you back even if the Habeas judge orders them to

zahrsaid.bsky.social•6 days ago

This is the real catch-22. Emphasis, sadly, on the catch.

christieharkness.bsky.social•6 days ago

I’m right there with you.

jackjones23.bsky.social•6 days ago

The US government did whisk off US citizens to a foreign country in the Mexican Repatriation. The Supreme Court Republicans believe this is A-OK.

shuchancellor.online•6 days ago

nothing hermano, nothing

gripnoir.bsky.social•6 days ago

Nothing.

peltast1.bsky.social•6 days ago

Nothing at all. And the government's position is that once your plane's wheels leave the ground no judicial ruling can touch you or ever bring you back.

alanwessman.bsky.social•6 days ago

The opinion says unanimously that you must be given a meaningful opportunity to file a habeas claim before removal. However, the majority do not make it clear what recourse you might have if the government does not comply with that requirement and removes you outside the US anyway.

mattbellviolinist.bsky.social•6 days ago

Oh, I think their silence makes it pretty clear.

mpbreen21.bsky.social•6 days ago

“Meaningful opportunity”

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

hopefully we'll find out in the ultimate Abrego Garcia opinion that the US would have to bring you back. Otherwise today's decision is even more of an insult.

nwbuckeye.bsky.social•6 days ago

Thank you. On a related note, others are responding that today's ruling provides me a reasonable opportunity to file a habeas claim. But if that's the case, don't I already have that right? If so, what does todays' ruling change and/or respond to?

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

also, the "reasonable opportunity" language is going to be doing some VERY HEAVY lifting in the next days and weeks. The gov argued that a matter of hours was a reasonable opportunity for the ones already transferred to CECOT. I have a feeling today's opinion will force them to give more time.

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

Well, even the DOJ conceded that the detainees had that right, so it wasn't really at issue. So the main ruling today is that the way that ACLU had brought the case, i.e. an Administrative Procedure Act and not habeas, is not a valid way to challenge this situation.

nwbuckeye.bsky.social•6 days ago

I'm sorry. I don't know what this means.

tempestori.bsky.social•3 days ago

Trump is an international criminal.
#REPORTTRUMP

Reports of any form of misconduct, including suspected unlawful activity, should be made promptly and confidentially in writing to the Head of the IOM at the Court's official mailing address, or by email to [email protected].

cesarini.bsky.social•6 days ago

The Supreme Courts’ thoughts and prayers that Trump won’t do that.

charlottegarden.bsky.social•6 days ago

Do you know what the remedy is if the administration doesn't give notice & a reasonable time? Is it "whatever SCOTUS says in the Abrego Garcia case"?

votevaxresist.bsky.social•5 days ago

How much did Trump pay and is he still paying?
At this point, can another country or the United Nations demand the return of these prisoners?

gripnoir.bsky.social•6 days ago

Stunned by the self-induced blindness SCOTUS majority imposed upon itself as to illegal rendition, which transpired under invocation of irrelevant Alien Enemies Act for persons presumed guilty until proven innocent, & if innocent, were not granted relief. #WinkWink

gripnoir.bsky.social•6 days ago

Context is, Sure, I'll take your word for that: DHS' 'spokeswoman told 60 Minutes that many of those without criminal records "are actually terrorists, human rights abusers, gangsters, and more. They just don't have a rap sheet in the U.S."' Define "fascism." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/photojournalist-witnesses-venezuelan-migrants-arrival-in-el-salvador-60-minutes/

aayala.bsky.social•6 days ago

This is the decision you write if you are okay with quick mass deportation while keeping the appearance of due process. As always with this SCOTUS all you have to do is reverse engineer their policy goal.

swede1961.bsky.social•6 days ago

We have been here
Argument of John Quincy Adams before the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Case of the United States, Appellants vs. Cinque, and others Africans captured in the Schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney. Delivered on the 24th of February and 1st of March , 1841

swede1961.bsky.social•6 days ago

avernalaw.bsky.social•6 days ago

Not with the speed of today's travel. Take someone who isn't prepared to be taken, who doesn't have the money for a lawyer, and that petition may never be filed.

swede1961.bsky.social•6 days ago

I know. To me it merits reading but then ,I lost hope that this slave-trading regime and SCOTUS would have 1) a sense of our history 2) respect for our Constitution AND so forth -- throwing Boasberg under the bus as well . . .disgrace

hpfllyhyprvglnt.bsky.social•6 days ago

Clearly the male justices have been living for too long atop their very high pedestal…

derek.bsky.social•6 days ago

After Davenport and Hendrix, Habeas is all but dead, so the fucking gall to stand on it for this case specifically is appalling.

paulseetheworld.bsky.social•6 days ago

Who is next?
I'm not especially fond of my neighbor. What about you??

cigarcitypro.bsky.social•6 days ago

Ever since they blatantly lied in the Kennedy vs Bremerton case, the right wing of SCOTUS has shown they have zero integrity and are all about partisanly predetermined outcomes

bradpatrick.bsky.social•6 days ago

Why have a merits docket at all?

spiril.bsky.social•6 days ago

The powers that want the felon to become a king will steadily erode constitutional protections until there are none.

neroden.bsky.social•6 days ago

Stop calling them "justices".
"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour" -- US Constitution

Thomas and Alito are proven bribe-takers (confessed in the case of Thomas). Bad behaviour.

dr0923.bsky.social•6 days ago

How ignorant of them to assume that a criminal regime will follow their orders.

bobertonbluesky.bsky.social•6 days ago

This has been discussed and is not my area of expertise, but for the most part, isn’t it correct that there is no constitutional right to counsel in immigration cases? Yet another way for SCOTUS to wash their hands of this illegality.

bananashirt.bsky.social•6 days ago

i'm so angry

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

i am so so so so angry

clemgrakata.bsky.social•6 days ago

They know. Its faux credulousness designed to give them a fig leaf to cover the fact that they just essentially gave the methods of the Gestapo their legal blessing.

Today marked another nail in the coffin of the legitimacy of American jurisprudence.

gainesm.bsky.social•6 days ago

So, here’s my ultimate question, shouldn’t a habeas petition for these instances be considered a 5th amendment situation rather than an immigration matter? If so, shouldn’t THAT get them public representation?

sanfele.bsky.social•6 days ago

Its wanton cowardice by the majority. Let them rot in hell

northeasternblot.bsky.social•6 days ago

Do they have to let you mail off a petition? Should we be keeping pre-drafted habeas petitions in our pocket?

crgshldn.bsky.social•6 days ago

Does this decision somehow impact the Garcia case?

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

not really; they could still order the US to return him, which would give this decision a little more heft (i.e. there's a consequence for the gov if they get the due process wrong).

crgshldn.bsky.social•6 days ago

This is far from my area of practice - but can an individual detained in a foreign country's prison, bring a habeas petition, and if so where? Or is there another non-habeas remedy available?

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

This question is not yet clear (although if that country had their own process, presumably the detainee could avail himself of it). It's central to the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case and it's also clearly one reason the US is choosing to warehouse people in these foreign jails to begin with.

crgshldn.bsky.social•6 days ago

If the S Ct gives even a shred of credence to the government's claim that despite its illegal actions in sending Abrego Garcia to CECOT, he has no remedy, we will be free in name only but not in subtance

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

absolutely. As far as i'm concerned it would be the end of the American experiment in due process of law.

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

One question that you would want to answer, if you were trying to argue that you get a right to petition a US court for habeas, is that the US is essentially contracting with El Salvador to serve as our jailor, rather like a private prison. You would want to conduct discovery into the arrangement.

crgshldn.bsky.social•6 days ago

That's a key fact in the record in Mr Garcia's case and makes the government's assertions that the can't compel his release all the more appalling

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

This was a considerable chunk of the Guantanamo litigation that occurred in the 2000's. The ultimate decision was that because they were in US custody the detainees could file habeas in US courts-- and because there is no US court in Cuba, they filed in the DC district.

hazellep.bsky.social•6 days ago

They know. Their cynicism is on full display.

rahanks.bsky.social•6 days ago

Frankly, it’s just dicta. If they meant it to have any teeth they would have upheld Broasberg’s order but said the sole issue in the case is whether process was due but that process had to come as habeas. Once they ruled no jurisdiction it’s all dicta.

rahanks.bsky.social•6 days ago

Broasberg’s order was the only things ensuring any process, but leaving that in place would have meant to much confrontation with the admin over contempt.

rahanks.bsky.social•6 days ago

Right not the admin can give people 2 hours notice, block them from access to phones and then deport them. What then? The Court hasn’t defined reasonable notice and they aren’t under any order that prevents them from removing people before a court can rule.

captainobvvious.bsky.social•6 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/captainobvvious.bsky.social/post/3lmb74crl2s2y

royx.bsky.social•6 days ago

you mean everyone doesn't have a family lawyer? smh, they should have thought about that before becoming poor

ironbound.bsky.social•6 days ago

Does this completely take away Judge Boasberg’s jurisdiction? Meaning, the government is off the hook for violating his order to turn the planes around?

neverwhere11.bsky.social•6 days ago

No that's a separate issue, this was just over the stay that prevented the Trump admin from deporting more people using the alien enemies act.

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

But would Boasberg keep the docket open to decide that question or would he transfer that to TX too?

neverwhere11.bsky.social•6 days ago

I'm not an expert but I don't see why people are only talking about Texas because that's where the admin is holding most people. The people concerned in the contempt hearing aren't in the US anymore of course there are other cases at the Supreme Court that may have bearing.

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

The ones that are already in custody at CECOT are in a different category, and I don't think it's at all clear what the outcome will be for them. If they are held in different US districts, like Louisiana, then those petitions would have to be filed there.

neverwhere11.bsky.social•6 days ago

Sure the question I was answering was about the contempt case.

rahanks.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yes, they ruled he doesn’t have jurisdiction and threw out the orders.

mlk39.bsky.social•6 days ago

Aaron i'm so fricking mad.

balanced1231.bsky.social•6 days ago

If the President can deport anyone without review.

Congress
Judges
The Supreme Court

Why bother with the little people?

They can not even stop and realize it could happen to them.

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social•6 days ago

No constitutional right to counsel, but a statutory right to hire a lawyer. https://bsky.app/profile/bobertonbluesky.bsky.social/post/3lmb3vinm5k2d

badjohnbrown.bsky.social•6 days ago

While they simultaneously let Trump's Executive Orders attack lawyers and law firms and pro bono work for any who dare to oppose his administration in court. The Supreme Court, much like the Trump administration itself, doesn't mind doing evil and pretending otherwise.

iputadollarin.bsky.social•6 days ago

So no real
Opportunity considering these will always be poor people involved
And
SCOTUS knows that very well

They think they threaded the needle

iputadollarin.bsky.social•6 days ago

This is insane

krisve.bsky.social•6 days ago

I thought the lawsuit and TRO won’t even brought on the ground of habeas. So they’re saying the government can fill up buses of, hmm, protesters with impunity and send them to torture camp and the only recourse is for every one of those people to find a lawyer and file a lawsuit? Thats backwards AF

asgvisalaw.bsky.social•6 days ago

No Constitutional right to *appointed* counsel. The Fifth Amendment still controls.

elementaleucology.com•6 days ago

How was this conclusion arrived at considering migrants and refugees pay taxes?

Is that not literally taxation without representation?

flatheadmama.bsky.social•6 days ago

Wow, how did I never see that before?? Excellent point.

asgvisalaw.bsky.social•6 days ago

The right to government-appointed and -paid counsel derives from the Sixth Amendment, which is only about criminal proceedings. There are broad rights to counsel in other proceedings under the Fifth Amendment, but not paid for, irrespective of what type of non-criminal proceeding it is.

elementaleucology.com•6 days ago

Got it. Thank you for the clarification.

paul-fabien.bsky.social•6 days ago

And of course they won’t give them notice until they are in a Trump friendly jurisdiction.

sumoh7.bsky.social•6 days ago

Joke? Did you mean to say NIGHTMARE?

Please pick your words carefully. This is absolutely not a joke.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply