gAlienLifeform @ gAlienLifeform @lemmy.world

Posts

1,893

Comments

2,092

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yep, also they're making every defendant file individually now, which is going to slow things down a lot and will probably lead to a lot of people going unrepresented. Also, they refused in the Abrego Garcia case to order the administration to bring back someone we know was wrongly sent to the Salvadoran dungeon, so probably these defendants are going to have to challenge the governments actions while they're still stuck down there unable to help their attorneys.

They're giving us the appearance of the rule of law while doing everything in their power to rig this in this administration's favor.

Their opinion focused entirely on the dumb technicality of where the lawsuit was filed, but then turned around and used that as the sole reason to clear away Boasberg's orders and let the government carry on deporting people.

Also, they talk a bit game about defendants' rights to hearings, but they also made it so every defendant has to challenge individually (in other words, no one big ACLU suit representing everyone finding the whole scheme unconstitutional and a bunch of defendants will probably fall through the cracks), they have to challenge in the fifth circuit in Texas (the most pro-trumo court in the country), and (with the Abrego Garcia case) they aren't making the government bring people back from El Salvador so these defendants are presumably going to be stuck in the El Salvador dungeon unable to assist their attorneys while those cases are going on.

That all said, while the court is obviously trying to give the Trump administration everything they want while still making it look like there will be a real trial, I don't doubt that this administration is stupid/arrogant enough to get pissy about how it looks and try to blow off even these kangaroo court hearings like you're saying.

Random sub stack I found that makes a couple of good points , tl;dr they didn't instantly kill the case so all the pundits can say the rule of law still exists, but this ruling rigs the proceedings going forward in such a way that it's going to be much harder for people facing deportations to win

...the more I read the Court’s Monday night ruling in Trump v. J.G.G., in which a 5-4 majority vacated a pair of temporary restraining orders entered by Chief Judge Boasberg in the Alien Enemy Act case, the more I think that this ruling really is a harbinger, and a profoundly alarming one, at that. To be clear, it’s not a sweeping win for the Trump administration; the Court did not suggest that what Trump is doing is legal, or, just as bad, that it might not be subject to judicial review. Indeed, the Court went out of its way to emphasize that individuals detained under the Act are entitled to due process, including meaningful judicial review.

But much like last Friday’s ruling in the Department of Education grants case, it’s still a ruling by a Court that seems willing to hide behind less-than-obvious legal artifices to make it harder for federal courts to actually restrain conduct by the current administration that everyone believes to be unlawful. As in that decision, here, a 5-4 majority has made it much harder for litigants to bring systemic challenges to what the Trump administration is doing. And especially in the broader context in which the Alien Enemy Act litigation, specifically, has unfolded, the justices in the majority got there by burying their heads in the sand.

...

The short per curiam opinion effectively says two things: First, the Court held that individuals detained and facing removal under the Alien Enemy Act are, contra the Trump administration, absolutely entitled to due process before they are removed, including meaningful judicial review. That should’ve been obvious, but it’s nice having the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirm that point. Indeed, the Court expressly held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” This is actually good.

But second, the Court also held that such judicial review must come through habeas petitions—not through the APA. In other words, the five individual plaintiffs in J.G.G. need to bring their suit as a habeas petition—and, given where they’re detained, not in the D.C. federal district court. This holding was, suffice it to say, not exactly obvious. Indeed, there are some compelling arguments that, although habeas is a vehicle through which to challenge the government’s use of the Alien Enemy Act, it’s not (and never has been) the exclusive vehicle for doing so. But here we are.

...

... lawyers could presumably try to file a habeas petition in D.C. on behalf of the individuals already removed to El Salvador—one that will depend upon how Abrego Garcia is resolved. But even if the Supreme Court sides with the lower courts there, and holds that federal courts can order the federal government to take steps to bring these folks back if their removals were unlawful, by vacating Boasberg’s TROs, the majority has made that review that much more difficult and potentially ineffective. That’s plenty alarming all by itself.

... going forward, assuming that this Court is going to aggressively enforce the district-of-confinement rule for individuals still in the United States (which I wrote about in the context of the Khalil case), that means habeas petitions will have to be brought in the district in which those individual detainees are each detained. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent raises the specter of individuals being held all over the country, but I think it’s more likely most of these cases end up in the Southern District of Texas—and, thus, in the Fifth Circuit. (Much like the Department of Education ruling is going to likely mean that at least some of the funding cutoff cases end up in the Court of Federal Claims.) ... Trading APA review for habeas, even if the remedies were otherwise commensurate, is trading the ideologically diverse (and national security-experienced) D.C. federal courts for the most right-leaning federal courts in the country. And the justices know that, too.

... regardless of which court conducts the review, there are at least some reasons to fear that the scope of review in a habeas petition won’t be commensurate with what’s available under the APA. Among other things, there’s less case law supporting emergency relief in habeas cases. There are additional practical roadblocks to certifying a class of affected individuals in habeas cases (because each member of the class is presumably challenging their detention, versus seeking facial review of government action). Unlike under the APA, there’s no specter of “universal” relief in a habeas case. And, although Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence plays up the use of habeas historically to prevent unlawful transfers to foreign countries before they happen, the very D.C. Circuit case that he cites in support, “Kiyemba II” (in which he was one of the judges), held that Guantánamo detainees could not use habeas to block their transfer to a foreign country based upon fear that they would be tortured there—so long as the federal government said they wouldn’t be. (I’ve written at some length about how wrong then-Judge Kavanaugh was on this point.)

Thus, there will be judicial review of the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemy Act... But the review we end up with will be far more impoverished than what was already unfolding before Chief Judge Boasberg. That review may still suffice in individual cases, but what the Court’s ruling completely refuses to engage with (unlike Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, which tackles it head-on) is how much the Trump administration is attempting to use the Alien Enemy Act systemically—for mass, summary removals rather than case-by-case, individualized adjudications. By relying upon an unpersuasive procedural technicality to force more individualized litigation, the Court is effectively bringing a pea-shooter to a gunfight.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250408111208/https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/140-the-disturbing-myopia-of-trump

e; added tl;dr

Boasberg still needs to rule on this case

Unfortunately it really is absolutely horrible news, the whole sole reason in this bullshit unsigned 5-4 opinion is that the plaintiffs should have filed in Texas not D.C., so it's going to a different judge now and this probably voids the question of whether or not the administration ignored court orders at the outset of this because (per this bullshit opinion) those orders were given by a court that never should have been involved

Incidentally, I found a better article about this (archive)

By a vote of 5-4, the justices declined to address the challengers’ contention that they are not covered by the 18th-century law on which Trump relied in issuing the order. Instead, the challengers’ lawsuit must be brought in Texas, where they are being held, rather than in Washington, D.C., the court explained.

The unsigned four-page opinion emphasized that although courts have a limited role in reviewing claims under that law, the plaintiffs and others detained under the law are entitled to “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 17-page dissent joined in full by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She contended that her colleagues’ “decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.”

Jackson wrote her own two-page dissent in which she lamented that the majority’s “fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.”

So, just to recap, the supreme court is not going to let deportation flights to El Salvador be stopped yet, but they will stop an order to have someone returned from El Salvador, but they want people being flown to El Salvador to have “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

At the risk of asking a stupid question, what's the point in challenging your deportation if you've already been flown to El Salvador and nobody can bring you back?

I mean, I think a lot of those rulings against Trump have been after they would make any difference and are just being done to keep up the appearance that they'll be some kind of check on him (which after the immunity ruling seems like a pretty insane thing to believe, but people really want it to be true so they'll grasp at whatever this court gives them), and either way this court has been an unacceptable problem demanding reform since Citizens United, let alone Dobbs.

The fight isn't over until it's over.

This I 100% agree with. My point in bringing up how corrupt the court is is not to make people feel hopeless but rather to make them realize that things are not normal and we cannot just sit back and wait for an authority figure to come and save us. We have to fight back, but we can do that and we are. Like you said, 5 million were on the street on Saturday, and there's another nationwide 50501 protest on April 19th, and I'm hoping it will be even bigger.

Nope, their argument has been that they can't comply ever because once El Salvadoran prison guards have custody over the deported individual they don't have any authority to tell those guards to give them back. They're not asking for an extra day or two, they're asking for us just to forget about this.

Several Republican senators have signed onto the Trade Review Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington

Way to work with Republicans on the one issue they give a shit about while doing fuck all for human rights you fucking collaborationist scum

Yep, he begrudgingly says the bare minimum when he's in front of mainstream cameras and microphones and that gets a headline, then he runs off to social media to rant and rave about snake oil bullshit and that gets buried at the bottom of the article

While in Texas, Kennedy also posted on X that the "most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine." ...

...

In a later post, Kennedy also said he had met with "two extraordinary healers" who he said have "healed some 300 measles-stricken Mennonite children using aerosolized budesonide and clarithromycin."

Budesonide can sometimes help to treat respiratory illnesses, reducing inflammation in the lungs, said pediatrics professor Dr. James Campbell of the University of Maryland in an email in March. CBS News reached out to Campbell after Kennedy previously hailed "miraculous and instantaneous recovery" from use of these treatments.

"In 2025, we should not have to treat measles in the US because it is completely preventable, but of course, like all preventable diseases, we do," said Campbell.

Campbell is vice chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics committee that develops recommendations for treating measles and other infectious diseases.

Clarithromycin, an antibacterial drug, has no effect on viruses like measles but can be used by doctors to treat coinfections from some bacterial pneumonias that sometimes develop in infected children, Campbell said. However, it does not work for all bacteria.

"These choices should be made on an individual basis by the doctors, not as sweeping recommendations for all children with measles," said Campbell. He said that the drugs don't have evidence proving they should be used as routine treatments for measles and cautioned against "sweeping statements about how those singular choices related to treatment of measles in general."

"Vaccination will prevent measles, but for those who do get measles, rigorous studies, and not anecdotal reports, will help us to better treat them," said Campbell.

John Sauer, who was confirmed as the U.S. solicitor general last week, told the justices that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had “ordered unprecedented relief: dictating to the United States

That's what a court order is

that it must not only negotiate with a foreign country

The one you negotiated with already to imprison your deportees for money

to return an enemy

If anyone's an enemy here it's you

alien on foreign soil,

Where you put him

but also succeed by 11:59 p.m. tonight.”

Then maybe you should stop wasting time and get to work on that

I love the concept and these song choices, I'm too lazy to make my own playlist but here are a few things you might dig

https://open.spotify.com/track/1mCAo03iRVykBr1HObOePI?context=spotify%3Aalbum%3A48VaRUNrCOe2mm6v6FnapS

https://open.spotify.com/track/56CDeVdoVjGbxfAddAnAPh?context=spotify%3Aalbum%3A2Tfy662ssq59AirYh8nsbi

https://open.spotify.com/track/0alxRtLPDHFKb5lH4KCtiy?context=spotify%3Aalbum%3A7ln1p6aRcW7uq8ANk8v3eN

https://open.spotify.com/track/0slaqsl9nNE4fayvnTJ13G?context=spotify%3Aalbum%3A19UJ41n18Bej71oLEj14xO

Bold to take a conservative / right-wing / Republican at their word

the US Constitution guarantees a trial by jury

We can and should make people waive their jury rights when they sign up to be soldiers or federal employees or contractors or elected officials. Think of it like how you have to agree to arbitration with a company when installing their software or whatever, you don't sign the contract/take the oath of office/etc. if you don't want to answer to an ICC panel.

the US court system puts the highest authority under one Supreme Court

Article III of the Constitution is like two pages because everyone in the 18th century convention hall without air conditioning in the Washington DC summer was hot and tired by the time they got to it and it basically just says "Congress should make a court system of some sort." Congress could pass a law saying the Supreme Court is now the ICC and they get original jurisdiction over any international matters and we'd be fine.

Bill Clinton originally signed the treaty when he was President, but never submitted it to Congress because

He didn't want US service members to be held accountable for their war crimes because that would have cost him a lot of political capital and he never cared that about the lives of vulnerable people

it began a long time ago ((couple months)))

We've been sending people off to legal black holes for torture and execution all over the world and calling it "extraordinary rendition" for a few decades now, actually

Another really sad aspect of this, if that 8 year old has siblings they might not be any better off without their parents because Texas (and most states) systems of foster/group homes is shit.

Children need to vote harder if they want lawmakers to take their special interests like not dying seriously.

The Republican party being willfully indifferent to death and human suffering? Noooo, I mean just because they gave us the Iraq war, Sandy Hook, a supreme court decision on abortion that led to a rising maternal mortality rate, intense and unqualified support for the death penalty when we know we've imprisoned innocent people, endless attacks on workplace safety consumer safety and environmental protection regulations, etc etc etc...

Man who was literally giving people $100 to repeat his political rhetoric earlier this week says people who disagree with him are puppets, very reasonable cool and not projection /s

Let's discuss plans to commit civil disobedience in public forums, that's a great idea! /s

The headline is missing the point and downplaying what's going on here, this lawyer wasn't expressing frustration, he didn't raise his voice or make insulting remarks or anything like that. He was asked by the judge [paraphrased] "Why is your client breaking the law?" and replied [paraphrased] "I asked them that too. I guess they didn't mean to do it?" but the Trump administration wanted him to either straight up lie and say they hadn't broken the law or refuse to answer the judge's questions and pretend the court didn't have authority to ask them.

Not only is our executive branch breaking the law and ignoring court orders to follow the law, they're throwing out any attorneys who won't also break the law and ignore judges too.

Why would this administration need competent lawyers, they're playing the game with cheat codes and can't lose

You could just stop reading the news if it bothers you so much instead of trying to interfere with other people's first amendment right to rot their brains right out of their own skulls with Chinese propaganda or whatever they want

Also, we should be more scared of our domestic oligarchs and the surveillance and propaganda machines they've been running on the American people

Also also, if TikTok disappears tomorrow, China or their intermediaries can buy whatever data they want from third party data brokers that bundle datasets from a whole variety of businesses and organizations, because we basically don't regulate any of this at all, because Congress doesn't give a shit about our privacy, because it would cost their donors money if they did