"A federal judge ordered an 'intense' two-week inquiry into the Trump administration’s refusal to seek the return of a man who was wrongly deported from Maryland to a notorious prison in El Salvador."
"'To date, what the record shows is that nothing has been done. Nothing,' U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said at a court hearing Tuesday."
"Xinis’ order sets up a high-stakes sprint that may force senior Trump administration officials to testify under oath about their response to court orders requiring them to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States. Each day that passes, the judge noted, is another day Abrego Garcia spends improperly detained in a maximum security mega-prison."
"'We’re going to move. There will be no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding,' the judge said. 'There are no business hours while we do this. … Cancel vacations, cancel other appointments. I’m usually pretty good about things like that in my court, but not this time. So, I expect all hands on deck.'"
RE China and the global trade war: it's the lack of planning and understanding what exactly needs to be ready *prior* to initiating said trade war that is gonna bite us. Setting up the free trade agreements with allies both new and old, getting the supply chains and industries either on-shored or friend-shored, and preparing public sentiment...
All of those things were not just ignored but actively harmed by Trump and his administration. The supply chains needed to keep our economy running haven't been prepped, which will bring shortages and increased costs. The critical materials - whether domestic or in Greenland - will take years to set up the mining and processing lines.
We're antagonizing our allies rather than bringing them closer, driving not just them but also potential allies towards China. This is harming our ability to make this trade war actually work, as we cannot go it alone without major harm to our reputation and status. The dollar is dropping in value, our debt is getting viewed as risky to buy, and our status as the global reserve currency is in danger.
And that's not even touching on the issues with these "deportations", which aren't that but instead some form of illegal jailing for life without trial. I say illegal because Congress has neither appropriated funds to pay for a contract with El Salvador, nor does the Constitution or any law allow for said jailing outside of the USA.
That the Trump DOJ is arguing that they lose jurisdiction as long as someone is sent out of country before they have a hearing should be chilling to us all: there's no proving one's citizenship in that instance, meaning there is no citizenship anymore. The government doesn't have to prove their case, they can just accuse you of a crime and ship you out.
I have said it here many times and will continue to say it: the ends do not justify the means, especially when it comes to the USA. The idea of America is that the means matter more than the ends, and the means - laws, regulations, etc... - must apply to everyone or they end up applying to no one.
The Constitution does not prohibit jailing outside the USA. Requiring funds to be appropriated by Congress is a novel idea from someone who defends forgiving student loans and most of the USAID waste.
Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It doesn't say "no citizen" or "no legal resident". It says no "person".
What's Kilmar Abrego Garcia's next step in the process?
As far as I can tell, there's absolutely no process that he's awaiting. When is his hearing? When can he speak with his attorney? The Trump administration is going out of its way to avoid requesting him back for his trial (where these allegations would be adjudicated).
Let me recite the Sixth Amendment for you:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Where does Garcia go to get his Sixth Amendment rights?
The Constitution does not allow it, and if I recall correctly you're very much concerned with ensuring that only what the Constitution allows is what we get. Is that only the case if it's for something you dislike?
POTUS does not have the authority to enter a contract with a foreign nation for the jailing of US prisoners, nor does POTUS have the right to spend funds that are not appropriated for a specific purpose. Only Congress has that ability per the Constitution.
Congress also set up and appropriated funds for specific student loans to be managed by the Executive, and delegated authority for them. Biden only cancelled loans for which he had purview: remember that SCOTUS blocked his plan to cancel all student loans because he did not have authority to do so.
You call spending on USAID waste because you disagree with it from an ideological perspective, not whether the spending was or was not efficient use of dollars for specific purposes that Congress approved and appropriated said dollars.
The government must prove they are in fact here illegally. Then, detainment should only be while in the USA - if they are being deported then they are being set free outside the USA. They should not be imprisoned for life elsewhere without trial - and there is no world in which a foreign country's prison is a Federal prison.
Congress appropriated funds for USAID, and yes some appropriations were for specific programs.
Concerns about Harvard seem out of place for someone who recently pointed out the hypocritical virtue signaling of an entity that has billions of dollars in endowments.
Your premise is interesting. For some time now, I’ve felt that those treating Trump like a god are the ones opposed to him, not supporting him. I don’t think it’s a stretch: like an atheist who spends way too much time thinking about God and trying to deny him. That’s what Trump haters remind me of.
I believe outrage over expedited deportation of illegals will continue to come mostly from radicalized liberals. That was and is the most popular promise. As to due process, Shipwrecked Crew states it this way: "“Due process” is a widely misunderstood process because it doesn’t have one fixed meaning. The better way to understand it is to reverse the phrasing by posing the question “What process is due?”
As for "due process", one of the things that we fought a Revolutionary War over was over:
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
(Declaration of Independence)
In terms of the constellation of meanings you think exist for "due process", a key part of ALL of them is the ability to contest the charges against you (as they may be false, as a Dept. of Justice attorney admitted[1]), so that mistakes in carrying out justice and the laws can be rectified before things escalate beyond a point where a misscarriage cannot be remedied.
I choose to believe Bill Shipley instead of Wikipedia. Garcia is definitely illegal. He was ordered deported. An activist judge interfered with that order by saying he should not be deported to El Salvador. That did not change his status to legal. He should have been detained instead of allowed to roam free as a gang member.
Author of Shipwrecked Crew Substack. He states his credentials as: "Bill Shipley, 22+ years as a federal prosecutor; eight years private practice; pronouns "Me/I/Sir/Your Grace/"Dickhead" (from my wife)."
It's too bad he has his paywall up, as I didn't ready anything useful, as it cuts off after the fourth paragraph.
Can you recap his argument - as it's clearly made an impression on you, someone who once swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution (including Amendments 5 & 6)?
Also, FWIW, Rudy Giuliani was once a decorated federal prosecutor, so forgive me for trying to sift the cranks from the people to listen to in that cohort.
This is the most I feel comfortable copying. He has posted numerous times on this matter. I could not possibly summarize. And Rudy was very effective as a prosecutor mayor. Not so much as a political spokesman.
"“Habeas” is only a vehicle — it is not any kind of substantive right or claim. It is the vehicle by which other claims against the legitimacy of confinement can be raised in a court. But the types of claims that can be made are limited by the nature of the order under review. There is a misconception that every federal court filing leads to a draw-out process with discovery and a trial, and the outcome — removal of alien enemies — takes years to accomplish. That’s simply not true.
The only issues involving TdA members will be 1) are they a Venezuelan citizen? 2) are they over 14 years of age? 3) Are they members of TdA?
If the answer to all 3 are “Yes” based on information submitted to a hearing officer, the only issue for a court to consider is whether the “process” was sufficient. The court doesn’t even need to hold a hearing — it can make a decision based on written submissions.
Federal courts make THOUSANDS of similar such determinations every year. State and federal inmates file thousands of “habeas” petitions concerning the circumstances of their incarceration. Nearly all of them are denied without a hearing. Thousands of “appeals” from final decisions by the Social Security Administration go through federal district courts. Usually a Magistrate Judge is assigned to do all the analysis and write a recommendation on disposition to the District Judges who must enter the final order.
Processing habeas claims from persons designated for removal under the AEA is not any real heavy lifting. To the extent the Administration really seeks to use this procedure — and I’m dubious that it will — processing these cases will be developed into a set of procedures that can be carried out rather expeditiously. The text of the AEA itself gives the President authority to adopt rules and procedures for how to process the removal of alien enemies. Beyond that, there will be very little for the courts to actually do at the end of the day.
“Due process” is a widely misunderstood process because it doesn’t have one fixed meaning. The better way to understand it is to reverse the phrasing by posing the question “What process is due?”
The most extreme example of “what process is due” is in the context of a criminal trial and the “due process” required under the Fifth Amendment. Right to counsel, right to jury trial, right to hear and confront witnesses and evidence, right to present evidence on your own behalf, etc. — all make up components of “what process is due” before the Government can imprison you for having committed a crime.
But those don’t apply to all “rights.” If the Government wants to enforce a zoning ordinance with regard to the location of a fence on your property, you aren’t entitled to the same “what process is due” answers as apply to criminal trials.
Here, individuals alleged to fall under the AEA proclamation are entitled to “notice” of the Government intends to remove them, and an “opportunity to be heard” before that removal happens.
His status was an asylum claim re persecution in El Salvador. That he was sent to El Salvador is the issue, one that the government attested was a mistake. If it was a mistake, then bring him back.
Mostly true. He claimed persecution by a rival gang in El Salvador, thereby admitting gang connections. From what I've read from lawyers who have probably tried more federal court cases than you, Garcia's personal problems are his responsibility. There was no claim of persecution by El Salvador. The order improperly stayed his deportation to El Salvador, but the Trump administration has said they will fly him back to the USA if the government there will release him. Hopefully he would then go into federal detention until the administration can find a country to take him.
The issue you have is there was no ruling that the order was improper.
If the USA is using El Salvador as a prison contractor, then there's no "if the government will release him" needed: we tell them to do so, and they do so.
That's what makes this a farce: he has not been found guilty of a crime, thus should not be in prison.
He was found to be a gang member to the satisfaction of an immigration judge and ordered to be deported. He is a citizen of El Salvador and is in their custody. I suppose Trump could stop paying El Salvador for his detention to see if they would turn him over.
SCOTUS answered that question already, and no: you're ignoring the conservatives that are aghast that one can be sent to a prison for life without trial.
Let's be clear, these aren't deportations: these are imprisonments. Deportation typically means sending someone back to their country of origin, or barring that due to concerns about their life/liberty if sent back then to a country that agrees to take them. Note that that doesn't mean sending them to a jail, but free within said country they were sent. That is not what is happening here.
The simple premise around due process is that the government must prove their case in a hearing, whether that is with immigration judges or through the criminal justice system. The Trump admin's premise is that the allegation is all that is necessary, which is a significant perversion of our system.
Quoting Timothy Snyder: "On the White House’s theory, if they abduct you, get you on a helicopter, get to international waters, shoot you in the head, and drop your corpse into the ocean, that is legal, because it is the conduct of foreign affairs."
"“Habeas” is only a vehicle — it is not any kind of substantive right or claim. It is the vehicle by which other claims against the legitimacy of confinement can be raised in a court. But the types of claims that can be made are limited by the nature of the order under review. There is a misconception that every federal court filing leads to a draw-out process with discovery and a trial, and the outcome — removal of alien enemies — takes years to accomplish. That’s simply not true.
The only issues involving TdA members will be 1) are they a Venezuelan citizen? 2) are they over 14 years of age? 3) Are they members of TdA?
If the answer to all 3 are “Yes” based on information submitted to a hearing officer, the only issue for a court to consider is whether the “process” was sufficient. The court doesn’t even need to hold a hearing — it can make a decision based on written submissions.
Federal courts make THOUSANDS of similar such determinations every year. State and federal inmates file thousands of “habeas” petitions concerning the circumstances of their incarceration. Nearly all of them are denied without a hearing. Thousands of “appeals” from final decisions by the Social Security Administration go through federal district courts. Usually a Magistrate Judge is assigned to do all the analysis and write a recommendation on disposition to the District Judges who must enter the final order.
Processing habeas claims from persons designated for removal under the AEA is not any real heavy lifting. To the extent the Administration really seeks to use this procedure — and I’m dubious that it will — processing these cases will be developed into a set of procedures that can be carried out rather expeditiously. The text of the AEA itself gives the President authority to adopt rules and procedures for how to process the removal of alien enemies. Beyond that, there will be very little for the courts to actually do at the end of the day.
“Due process” is a widely misunderstood process because it doesn’t have one fixed meaning. The better way to understand it is to reverse the phrasing by posing the question “What process is due?”
The most extreme example of “what process is due” is in the context of a criminal trial and the “due process” required under the Fifth Amendment. Right to counsel, right to jury trial, right to hear and confront witnesses and evidence, right to present evidence on your own behalf, etc. — all make up components of “what process is due” before the Government can imprison you for having committed a crime.
But those don’t apply to all “rights.” If the Government wants to enforce a zoning ordinance with regard to the location of a fence on your property, you aren’t entitled to the same “what process is due” answers as apply to criminal trials.
Here, individuals alleged to fall under the AEA proclamation are entitled to “notice” of the Government intends to remove them, and an “opportunity to be heard” before that removal happens.
That’s it."
Further, your argument about the helicopter over international waters falls into the category of "in absurdum".
SCOTUS already ruled unanimously on what the needs were from a due process/habeas perspective.
The government has to prove its case: allegations alone are not enough, much less the statement that "A tattoo means they're a gang member" as has been done for some of these.
And no, it's not absurd: that is exactly what Trump is arguing, that once anyone is outside of US jurisdiction - e.g. international - that there is no action that can be taken by the US. So: if they want to grab citizens or legal residents off the street and send them out of country before a hearing has occurred and ruling made, then they can do so.
The Supremes did not require hearings. They did eliminate venue shopping.
From Shipwrecked Crew.
"The clear import of the Order is that before any TdA member or other person designated as an “alien enemy” can be removed, they might be given “notice” with sufficient time following for them to seek “habeas relief” in the location they are detained."
On Harvard, I'd be remiss to not point out that my alma mater Princeton has been holding the line from the beginning.
https://notesfromthevoid.cc/note-74-my-letter-to-princetons-president/
Update on the Garcia situation:
"A federal judge ordered an 'intense' two-week inquiry into the Trump administration’s refusal to seek the return of a man who was wrongly deported from Maryland to a notorious prison in El Salvador."
"'To date, what the record shows is that nothing has been done. Nothing,' U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said at a court hearing Tuesday."
"Xinis’ order sets up a high-stakes sprint that may force senior Trump administration officials to testify under oath about their response to court orders requiring them to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States. Each day that passes, the judge noted, is another day Abrego Garcia spends improperly detained in a maximum security mega-prison."
"'We’re going to move. There will be no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding,' the judge said. 'There are no business hours while we do this. … Cancel vacations, cancel other appointments. I’m usually pretty good about things like that in my court, but not this time. So, I expect all hands on deck.'"
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/15/judge-launches-inquiry-into-trump-administrations-refusal-to-seek-return-of-wrongly-deported-man-00291942
A relevant piece by Timothy Snyder at https://snyder.substack.com/p/state-terror.
RE China and the global trade war: it's the lack of planning and understanding what exactly needs to be ready *prior* to initiating said trade war that is gonna bite us. Setting up the free trade agreements with allies both new and old, getting the supply chains and industries either on-shored or friend-shored, and preparing public sentiment...
All of those things were not just ignored but actively harmed by Trump and his administration. The supply chains needed to keep our economy running haven't been prepped, which will bring shortages and increased costs. The critical materials - whether domestic or in Greenland - will take years to set up the mining and processing lines.
We're antagonizing our allies rather than bringing them closer, driving not just them but also potential allies towards China. This is harming our ability to make this trade war actually work, as we cannot go it alone without major harm to our reputation and status. The dollar is dropping in value, our debt is getting viewed as risky to buy, and our status as the global reserve currency is in danger.
And that's not even touching on the issues with these "deportations", which aren't that but instead some form of illegal jailing for life without trial. I say illegal because Congress has neither appropriated funds to pay for a contract with El Salvador, nor does the Constitution or any law allow for said jailing outside of the USA.
That the Trump DOJ is arguing that they lose jurisdiction as long as someone is sent out of country before they have a hearing should be chilling to us all: there's no proving one's citizenship in that instance, meaning there is no citizenship anymore. The government doesn't have to prove their case, they can just accuse you of a crime and ship you out.
I have said it here many times and will continue to say it: the ends do not justify the means, especially when it comes to the USA. The idea of America is that the means matter more than the ends, and the means - laws, regulations, etc... - must apply to everyone or they end up applying to no one.
The Constitution does not prohibit jailing outside the USA. Requiring funds to be appropriated by Congress is a novel idea from someone who defends forgiving student loans and most of the USAID waste.
Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It doesn't say "no citizen" or "no legal resident". It says no "person".
Illegals "shall" detained while awaiting processing. USA law.
What's Kilmar Abrego Garcia's next step in the process?
As far as I can tell, there's absolutely no process that he's awaiting. When is his hearing? When can he speak with his attorney? The Trump administration is going out of its way to avoid requesting him back for his trial (where these allegations would be adjudicated).
Let me recite the Sixth Amendment for you:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Where does Garcia go to get his Sixth Amendment rights?
The Constitution does not allow it, and if I recall correctly you're very much concerned with ensuring that only what the Constitution allows is what we get. Is that only the case if it's for something you dislike?
POTUS does not have the authority to enter a contract with a foreign nation for the jailing of US prisoners, nor does POTUS have the right to spend funds that are not appropriated for a specific purpose. Only Congress has that ability per the Constitution.
Congress also set up and appropriated funds for specific student loans to be managed by the Executive, and delegated authority for them. Biden only cancelled loans for which he had purview: remember that SCOTUS blocked his plan to cancel all student loans because he did not have authority to do so.
You call spending on USAID waste because you disagree with it from an ideological perspective, not whether the spending was or was not efficient use of dollars for specific purposes that Congress approved and appropriated said dollars.
Illegal aliens shall be detained. Federal prisons are under the purview of POTUS. There was nothing specific approved by Congress for USAID.
The government must prove they are in fact here illegally. Then, detainment should only be while in the USA - if they are being deported then they are being set free outside the USA. They should not be imprisoned for life elsewhere without trial - and there is no world in which a foreign country's prison is a Federal prison.
Congress appropriated funds for USAID, and yes some appropriations were for specific programs.
Concerns about Harvard seem out of place for someone who recently pointed out the hypocritical virtue signaling of an entity that has billions of dollars in endowments.
https://www.theracketnews.com/p/johns-hopkins-and-the-spiral-of-spite
Your premise is interesting. For some time now, I’ve felt that those treating Trump like a god are the ones opposed to him, not supporting him. I don’t think it’s a stretch: like an atheist who spends way too much time thinking about God and trying to deny him. That’s what Trump haters remind me of.
I believe outrage over expedited deportation of illegals will continue to come mostly from radicalized liberals. That was and is the most popular promise. As to due process, Shipwrecked Crew states it this way: "“Due process” is a widely misunderstood process because it doesn’t have one fixed meaning. The better way to understand it is to reverse the phrasing by posing the question “What process is due?”
https://substack.com/home/post/p-160846580
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not an "illegal" in any sense of the word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia
As for "due process", one of the things that we fought a Revolutionary War over was over:
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
(Declaration of Independence)
In terms of the constellation of meanings you think exist for "due process", a key part of ALL of them is the ability to contest the charges against you (as they may be false, as a Dept. of Justice attorney admitted[1]), so that mistakes in carrying out justice and the laws can be rectified before things escalate beyond a point where a misscarriage cannot be remedied.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/justice-department-places-attorney-struggled-explain-maryland-mans-dep-rcna199866
I choose to believe Bill Shipley instead of Wikipedia. Garcia is definitely illegal. He was ordered deported. An activist judge interfered with that order by saying he should not be deported to El Salvador. That did not change his status to legal. He should have been detained instead of allowed to roam free as a gang member.
Never heard of Bill Shipley and a Google search isn't helping.
Who is he, and what has he said that should convince me to abandon my plain reading of the US Constitution?
Author of Shipwrecked Crew Substack. He states his credentials as: "Bill Shipley, 22+ years as a federal prosecutor; eight years private practice; pronouns "Me/I/Sir/Your Grace/"Dickhead" (from my wife)."
It's too bad he has his paywall up, as I didn't ready anything useful, as it cuts off after the fourth paragraph.
Can you recap his argument - as it's clearly made an impression on you, someone who once swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution (including Amendments 5 & 6)?
Also, FWIW, Rudy Giuliani was once a decorated federal prosecutor, so forgive me for trying to sift the cranks from the people to listen to in that cohort.
This is the most I feel comfortable copying. He has posted numerous times on this matter. I could not possibly summarize. And Rudy was very effective as a prosecutor mayor. Not so much as a political spokesman.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-159999313
"“Habeas” is only a vehicle — it is not any kind of substantive right or claim. It is the vehicle by which other claims against the legitimacy of confinement can be raised in a court. But the types of claims that can be made are limited by the nature of the order under review. There is a misconception that every federal court filing leads to a draw-out process with discovery and a trial, and the outcome — removal of alien enemies — takes years to accomplish. That’s simply not true.
The only issues involving TdA members will be 1) are they a Venezuelan citizen? 2) are they over 14 years of age? 3) Are they members of TdA?
If the answer to all 3 are “Yes” based on information submitted to a hearing officer, the only issue for a court to consider is whether the “process” was sufficient. The court doesn’t even need to hold a hearing — it can make a decision based on written submissions.
Federal courts make THOUSANDS of similar such determinations every year. State and federal inmates file thousands of “habeas” petitions concerning the circumstances of their incarceration. Nearly all of them are denied without a hearing. Thousands of “appeals” from final decisions by the Social Security Administration go through federal district courts. Usually a Magistrate Judge is assigned to do all the analysis and write a recommendation on disposition to the District Judges who must enter the final order.
Processing habeas claims from persons designated for removal under the AEA is not any real heavy lifting. To the extent the Administration really seeks to use this procedure — and I’m dubious that it will — processing these cases will be developed into a set of procedures that can be carried out rather expeditiously. The text of the AEA itself gives the President authority to adopt rules and procedures for how to process the removal of alien enemies. Beyond that, there will be very little for the courts to actually do at the end of the day.
“Due process” is a widely misunderstood process because it doesn’t have one fixed meaning. The better way to understand it is to reverse the phrasing by posing the question “What process is due?”
The most extreme example of “what process is due” is in the context of a criminal trial and the “due process” required under the Fifth Amendment. Right to counsel, right to jury trial, right to hear and confront witnesses and evidence, right to present evidence on your own behalf, etc. — all make up components of “what process is due” before the Government can imprison you for having committed a crime.
But those don’t apply to all “rights.” If the Government wants to enforce a zoning ordinance with regard to the location of a fence on your property, you aren’t entitled to the same “what process is due” answers as apply to criminal trials.
Here, individuals alleged to fall under the AEA proclamation are entitled to “notice” of the Government intends to remove them, and an “opportunity to be heard” before that removal happens.
That’s it."
His status was an asylum claim re persecution in El Salvador. That he was sent to El Salvador is the issue, one that the government attested was a mistake. If it was a mistake, then bring him back.
Mostly true. He claimed persecution by a rival gang in El Salvador, thereby admitting gang connections. From what I've read from lawyers who have probably tried more federal court cases than you, Garcia's personal problems are his responsibility. There was no claim of persecution by El Salvador. The order improperly stayed his deportation to El Salvador, but the Trump administration has said they will fly him back to the USA if the government there will release him. Hopefully he would then go into federal detention until the administration can find a country to take him.
The issue you have is there was no ruling that the order was improper.
If the USA is using El Salvador as a prison contractor, then there's no "if the government will release him" needed: we tell them to do so, and they do so.
That's what makes this a farce: he has not been found guilty of a crime, thus should not be in prison.
He was found to be a gang member to the satisfaction of an immigration judge and ordered to be deported. He is a citizen of El Salvador and is in their custody. I suppose Trump could stop paying El Salvador for his detention to see if they would turn him over.
SCOTUS answered that question already, and no: you're ignoring the conservatives that are aghast that one can be sent to a prison for life without trial.
Let's be clear, these aren't deportations: these are imprisonments. Deportation typically means sending someone back to their country of origin, or barring that due to concerns about their life/liberty if sent back then to a country that agrees to take them. Note that that doesn't mean sending them to a jail, but free within said country they were sent. That is not what is happening here.
The simple premise around due process is that the government must prove their case in a hearing, whether that is with immigration judges or through the criminal justice system. The Trump admin's premise is that the allegation is all that is necessary, which is a significant perversion of our system.
Quoting Timothy Snyder: "On the White House’s theory, if they abduct you, get you on a helicopter, get to international waters, shoot you in the head, and drop your corpse into the ocean, that is legal, because it is the conduct of foreign affairs."
Read what Bill Shippley says about that.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-159999313
"“Habeas” is only a vehicle — it is not any kind of substantive right or claim. It is the vehicle by which other claims against the legitimacy of confinement can be raised in a court. But the types of claims that can be made are limited by the nature of the order under review. There is a misconception that every federal court filing leads to a draw-out process with discovery and a trial, and the outcome — removal of alien enemies — takes years to accomplish. That’s simply not true.
The only issues involving TdA members will be 1) are they a Venezuelan citizen? 2) are they over 14 years of age? 3) Are they members of TdA?
If the answer to all 3 are “Yes” based on information submitted to a hearing officer, the only issue for a court to consider is whether the “process” was sufficient. The court doesn’t even need to hold a hearing — it can make a decision based on written submissions.
Federal courts make THOUSANDS of similar such determinations every year. State and federal inmates file thousands of “habeas” petitions concerning the circumstances of their incarceration. Nearly all of them are denied without a hearing. Thousands of “appeals” from final decisions by the Social Security Administration go through federal district courts. Usually a Magistrate Judge is assigned to do all the analysis and write a recommendation on disposition to the District Judges who must enter the final order.
Processing habeas claims from persons designated for removal under the AEA is not any real heavy lifting. To the extent the Administration really seeks to use this procedure — and I’m dubious that it will — processing these cases will be developed into a set of procedures that can be carried out rather expeditiously. The text of the AEA itself gives the President authority to adopt rules and procedures for how to process the removal of alien enemies. Beyond that, there will be very little for the courts to actually do at the end of the day.
“Due process” is a widely misunderstood process because it doesn’t have one fixed meaning. The better way to understand it is to reverse the phrasing by posing the question “What process is due?”
The most extreme example of “what process is due” is in the context of a criminal trial and the “due process” required under the Fifth Amendment. Right to counsel, right to jury trial, right to hear and confront witnesses and evidence, right to present evidence on your own behalf, etc. — all make up components of “what process is due” before the Government can imprison you for having committed a crime.
But those don’t apply to all “rights.” If the Government wants to enforce a zoning ordinance with regard to the location of a fence on your property, you aren’t entitled to the same “what process is due” answers as apply to criminal trials.
Here, individuals alleged to fall under the AEA proclamation are entitled to “notice” of the Government intends to remove them, and an “opportunity to be heard” before that removal happens.
That’s it."
Further, your argument about the helicopter over international waters falls into the category of "in absurdum".
(Apologies for not seeing this before.)
SCOTUS already ruled unanimously on what the needs were from a due process/habeas perspective.
The government has to prove its case: allegations alone are not enough, much less the statement that "A tattoo means they're a gang member" as has been done for some of these.
And no, it's not absurd: that is exactly what Trump is arguing, that once anyone is outside of US jurisdiction - e.g. international - that there is no action that can be taken by the US. So: if they want to grab citizens or legal residents off the street and send them out of country before a hearing has occurred and ruling made, then they can do so.
The Supremes did not require hearings. They did eliminate venue shopping.
From Shipwrecked Crew.
"The clear import of the Order is that before any TdA member or other person designated as an “alien enemy” can be removed, they might be given “notice” with sufficient time following for them to seek “habeas relief” in the location they are detained."
Incorrect as stated by Steve in the article: SCOTUS ruled that the appropriate hearings for the relevant laws being utilized must occur.
Habeas relief = due process via hearings in the appropriate venue.
And due process is up to the judge. And the venue is where they are detained.