We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. 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. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas.
Would someone like to explain what that means in standard English.
Back in the day, Perry Mason would routinely file for habeas corpus (You may have the body) to get his clients released from jail. But somehow or other, that did not seem to work for the citizens who exercised their right to enter the People’s House to petition government back on Jan 6.
“But we don’t reach those arguments.” I thought lawyers were taught to communicate clearly. I have no idea what that sentence means and have to guess it means we don’t agree with those arguments or maybe we didn’t reach the same conclusions or maybe we didn’t understand those arguments. Can you reach an argument? Sounds like talking at the bar with the boys and I am telling them that the wife and I almost got into it. We disagreed, but we didn’t reach the argument stage.
This is the best of the best.
It means a court wont consider certain issues if it already has grounds sufficient for its decision. A court uses the phrase “we do not reach” certain issues or contentions so that attorneys reading the case know it is not precedential as to those issues or contentions.
Andrea Widburg on American Thinker says this is a “Pyrrhic victory” because the court still seems to be indicating that President’s decisions under AEA are subject to judicial review.
“Order entered by The Chief Justice: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the April 4, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, case No. 8:25-cv-951, is hereby stayed pending further order of The Chief Justice or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Tuesday, April 8th, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”
SC docket
4th Cir
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69847836/kilmar-abrego-garcia-v-kristi-noem/
D MD
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/abrego-garcia-v-noem/
Application (24A904) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 13, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1780, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. See, e.g. , Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA , 568 U. S. 398 (2013). This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application. Justice Jackson would have declined to reach the standing question in the context of an application for emergency relief where the issue is pending in the lower courts and the applicants have not demonstrated urgency in the form of interim irreparable harm. See Department of Education v. California , 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). Thus, she would have denied the application.
USSC Docket:
ND CA Docket:
9th Circuit Docket:
Background:
This s a clear sign imo that the legal system has been over educated. In over educated professions, the people working in the profession use ever increasing bullshit language in order to prove they have a degree in the profession.
This is especially prevalent the further the profession is from complex. If you read something from the social sciences it is obvious that they have used complex language in order to give the impression that what they are working on is complex.
The goal for people working in government institutions should be to communicate in a manner that a citizen can understand. The citizens are the audience.
By the way, this is why I consider Scalia head and shoulders above the modern justices. I could read his opinions and understand them.
This is more good news. But I reckon we won’t know much until SCOTUS gets beyond the PI/TRO stage with these cases.
plus he was hilarious and witty
Another stay:
USSC docket:
DC Cir:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69658769/cathy-harris-v-scott-bessent/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69714705/gwynne-wilcox-v-donald-trump/
D DC:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69612129/wilcox-v-trump/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69631849/harris-v-bessent/
NEW🧵of cases against Trump Administration where proceedings have reached Supreme Court. 1/
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 29, 2025
SD TX TRO on a Habeas claim:
Docket:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69862833/jav-v-trump/
SD NY likewise:
Docket:
Here’s my question: I always thought that because of the Fifth Amendment, any “person” in our jurisdiction would be entitled to some level of due process before being deprived of life, liberty or property.
F’rinstance, if I were picked up by ICE, I would want a chance to prove that I am not a Venezuelan national here illegally.
Here’s what I learned in law school: the fundamentals of due process (1) notice. (2) opportunity to be heard.
But the hearing wouldn’t have to be through a court, it could be an administrative determination. Didn’t these people already GET that? I men how do we know that the individuals ARE here illegally? Are they people who entered illegally and were released after being given a court date? If so I think that initial determination WAS “due process”, and all of it to which they were entitled.
This begs the additional query (if that’s what “begging the question” means; I’ve never been too sure): when we deport somebody, ARE we depriving them of
life (no)
liberty (no, except briefly so we can arrange deportation)
or property? (What is their property interest in anything here, which they stole by entering illegally.)
And if we’re not depriving them of life liberty or property, then the due process requirement isn t even triggered, beyond the bare determination of their illegal status.
I haven’t heard anybody question the fact that these bozos are, ah, “undocumented”. I reckon maybe the problem is they’re waiting for a determination of whether they can get “asylum”, which ain’t gonna happen unless the law is amended: the criteria for asylum are very narrow. And in any event a lot of these guys have been committing crimes here in the meantime, so they wouldn’t get it even if they did qualify (I hope; haven’t researched that).
This is the MS13 Maryland case:
Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed 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.
Sotomayor