Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, these state-criminal-sentence scenarios are incredibly far afield from the relief the class is seeking here; they aren’t even seeking discharge, nor are they people serving criminal sentences. 10/ - ThreadSky

kovarsky.bsky.social • 21 days ago

Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, these state-criminal-sentence scenarios are incredibly far afield from the relief the class is seeking here; they aren’t even seeking discharge, nor are they people serving criminal sentences.

10/

Comments

winstonsmith2024.bsky.social•21 days ago

They weren't even convicted of anything! They never even saw the inside of a courtroom! How the majority can say this involves "core" habeas corpus is bizarre.

adamssv.bsky.social•20 days ago

This amounts to a Fox News cover for the administration --"Oh they had the right to file habeas they just didn't do it correctly. We followed the law."
Conflating legalism for justice is an old trick.

kovarsky.bsky.social•21 days ago

I’m not really sure what the per curiam is doing when it cites Heikkila v. Barber (1953), because Heikkila was just about whether a statute that expressly purported to strip non-habeas jurisdiction in fact did so.

11/

kovarsky.bsky.social•21 days ago

The Court can’t possibly go all in on Heikkila since it would have to acknowledge two cases in the next five years holding that challenges it to removal and deportation orders can go through the APA: Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro (1955) (deportation) and Brownell v. We Shung (1956) (exclusion).

12/

kovarsky.bsky.social•21 days ago

And all of this is maddening given two recent opinions where the court held that challenges to immigration detention were NOT CORE – LITERALLY USING THAT WORD.

13/

kovarsky.bsky.social•20 days ago

i should say that these were challenges to transfers, only Thuraissigiam was immigration detention.

kovarsky.bsky.social•21 days ago

Here's Alito’s majority opinion in DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020), on whether the Suspension Clause permitted Congress to strip habeas power over expedited removal procedure:

14/

kovarsky.bsky.social•21 days ago

And here is Roberts in Munaf v. Geren (2008):

15/

losaltoslaw.bsky.social•20 days ago

Wow. I knew the ruling was absurd on its face, and have come to expect nothing but shameless, hypocritical and result-oriented decisions from Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, but this is openly contemptuous of any concept of the rule of law; further confirming Brown- Jackson’s dissent.

jgschraiber.bsky.social•21 days ago

Am I understanding correctly that this and the previous case you cited would actually say that this case *cannot* proceed through habeas???

kovarsky.bsky.social•21 days ago

Same issues w/ BK. The gets VERY FIRST CASE HE CITES wrong. He cites LoBue v. Christopher (CADC 1996) to support the proposition: “In the extradition context and with respect to transfers of [GTMO] and other wartime detainees, habeas corpus proceedings have long been the appropriate vehicle.”

/16

modemjunkie.bsky.social•20 days ago

@skyview.social unroll

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply