HAPPENING NOW: Rümeysa Öztürk's attorneys (including ACLU) argue before Mass. federal judge Denise Casper that Öztürk's case should remain in Massachusetts. (The govt argues it should be dismissed or moved to Louisiana.)
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
So basically if the judge rules in favor of the government, it sets a precedent wherein anybody can be kidnapped and renditioned across state lines in order to procure a more favorable outcome for the prosecution
Sort of, but it's just one federal district court, and a different federal district court (in the Mahmoud Khalil case) didn't let the government get away with this. So in the aggregate it would muddy the waters a little rather than setting a uniform pro-govt precedent.
Öztürk atty: We don't even need the "immediate custodian exception" to get local jurisdiction, because we named the correct custodian: the head of the Boston ICE office, which is the office for all of New England. (The govt says Öztürk was in VT when she filed for habeas.) Easier than Khalil case!
Öztürk atty: We've submitted a number of declarations attesting to how unusual the circumstances of Öztürk's detention and repeated transfer were. Also an issue that came up in Khalil case.
Öztürk atty: Her attorneys were not told where Öztürk was, despite their best efforts to find out over many hours, while she was being moved from state to state. Your order was intended to preserve status quo. But the govt tried to whisk her away and conceal location until she was in Louisiana.
Öztürk atty: I'm not aware of another case in which these rules about jurisdiction are unbendingly applied to a situation where the petitioner is *in transit*—not in the custody of a new institution but merely on the road.
I'm really hoping a judge eventually asks "Why always Louisiana? You have these reasons why they can't be kept at location A, and then not location B, but they always end up in Louisiana, as if there are no other detention centers along the east coast"
Judge: I now have a number of declarations saying that moving the petitioner around wasn't usual. Can't I take those into considerations under Vasquez?
Govt: You can look at the govt's explanations of why Öztürk was moved. We looked for beds, found some in Louisiana, so moved her there.
It’s one of the bad faith stunts they have been using and then arguing in court that the detainees are only eligible for habeas relief which must be filed on an individual basis in the district where they are in custody. Judges are getting fed up with it, but Congress doesn’t care.
I have respect for the notion of a court’s jurisdiction, but if the interest of justice is paramount this entire hearing misses the mark, imho.
Her counsel is there, the gov’s council is there; address the issue of whether she’s is being improperly held. Incarceration should be unrepairable injury.
Unfortunately, the court has to figure out if it has jurisdiction first, because if it doesn't, it lacks the power to adjudicate any other questions. Plus, it's pretty clear DHS has the right to detain her. The question of whether the govt is violating the First Amend will take a while to determine
I’ll add that my (admittedly meager) understanding of habeas jurisdiction rules are largely court-created doctrine. Suggests that a court could also uncreate (adapt) those rules in the furtherance of justice.
Plaintiff submits to jurisdiction; federal court has jurisdiction over federal govt. Done.
When the organization is ICE or DHS the belief that “this part of the government is different from that part” is a useful fiction that only helps the government.
They want it in Louisiana because it’s more a republican maga judge area. I say, it should be in the area she was illegally arrested at, which is Mass.
🤞🏻 I really hope they at MINIMUM bring her back to MA. This has been horrible, I can only imagine how terrifying the experience has been for her (and the many others ICE have done this to as well.)
Exactly! So then how do they arrive at arguing for dismissal, or advocating that the case be heard in Louisiana?!!! She was forcibly taken from Mass against a Court Order!
The brazen disregard for the courts, and the rule of law in all these immigrant cases - is absolutely chilling.
Comments
Judge: Can petitioner really be faulted for that?
Govt: No, not at the time of initial filing, but at the time they filed amended petition, it was clear that she'd been in Louisiana for several days.
Govt: You can look at the govt's explanations of why Öztürk was moved. We looked for beds, found some in Louisiana, so moved her there.
to who?
This is bigger than signalgate people!
Her counsel is there, the gov’s council is there; address the issue of whether she’s is being improperly held. Incarceration should be unrepairable injury.
It’d be nice if cash bond or RoR were standard in these sorts of actions.
Plaintiff submits to jurisdiction; federal court has jurisdiction over federal govt. Done.
Thanks for the updates 🙏🙏🙏
Massachusetts judges tend to be more liberal.
The brazen disregard for the courts, and the rule of law in all these immigrant cases - is absolutely chilling.
This hearing, and others, may shut down that practice.