Judge Blocks Trump From Sending Three Venezuelans to Guantanamo
“Considering the uncertainty surrounding jurisdiction, the Court determines it is necessary to enjoin the transfer of Petitioners to Guantanamo Bay.”
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued a temporary restraining order on President Donald Trump’s mission to send three Venezuelans to Guantanamo Bay due to the uncertainty over jurisdiction.
Luis Eduardo Perez Parra, Leonel Jose Rivas Gonzalez, and Abrahan Josue Barrios Morales filed the petition on Sunday.
Considering the uncertainty surrounding jurisdiction, the Court determines it is necessary to enjoin the transfer of Petitioners to Guantanamo Bay. At this time, the Court cannot say that without this injunction it would not be jurisdictionally deprived to preside over the original writ of habeas corpus should petitioners be transferred. Thus, an injunction is necessary to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to this Court. The Court emphasizes that this Order is limited in scope to these three Petitioners because this matter was pending before this Court long before any transfers began. The Court also emphasizes that there appears to be no prejudice to the government by this injunction to maintain the status quo pending the resolution of this matter. Moreover, there appears to be many instances where district courts utilize its inherent authority under the AWA to retain jurisdiction and enjoin transfers. See SEC v. Vision Communs., 315 U.S. App. D.C. 384, 74 F.3d 287, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (All Writs Act “empowers a district court to issue injunctions to protect its jurisdiction”); Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, 350 F. Supp. 2d 28, 54 (D.D.C. 2004) (federal courts “may and should take such action as will defeat attempts to wrongfully deprive parties” of their right to sue in federal court) (internal citation omitted); Lindstrom v. Graber, 203 F.3d 470, 474–76 (7th Cir. 2000) (All Writs Act permits court to stay extradition pending appeal of habeas corpus petition).
The three petitioners challenged the legality of their detention by ICE, claiming it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The three men have been in ICE custody in New Mexico since late 2023.
Their filing stated that the New Mexico court “should retain jurisdiction over their pending habeas petitions even upon transfer” to Guantanamo Bay.
“Critically, however, this Court need not actually decide the legal status of immigration detentions in Guantánamo or prescribe conditions for counsel access there; the mere uncertainty the government has created surrounding the availability of legal process and counsel access is sufficient to authorize the modest injunction requested under the prophylactic equitable powers the All Writs Act confers to this Court to preserve the status quo and protect the integrity of ongoing judicial proceedings,” they wrote.”
Trump’s administration started sending illegal Venezuelan aliens to Guantanamo Bay on February 4th. So far DHS has sent five sets of Venezuelans to the base.
Two of the petitioners also claimed they do not belong to the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
A second flight of dangerous criminal aliens took off for Guantanamo Bay yesterday. ALL are known gang members from Venezuela. Some of their heinous crimes include:
-Confessed homicide
-Wanted in Venezuela for escaping from jail and for aggravated robbery with weapon/intent to… https://t.co/SDPJg9MDfj— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) February 7, 2025
[Featured image via YouTube]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Fuck this guy.
Do it, let the judge try and enforce his decision.
Judges have zero authority over the defense of the nation.
This is not a defense matter. The people are not prisoners of war; therefore they are entitled to habeas corpus.
I think if you lived in one of those CO apartment complexes they invaded, you would think differently.
Let them have their rights while swimming towards Venezuela. Add steak sauce.
Drop the illegal military aged invaders off at the judges home. Let them live there until a decision is made.
How dare those un-elected federal Judges interfere with the operation of the executive branch of government. But I guess that’s how it’s going to be for the next four years. The Trump administration hampered in its agenda and goals by an activist, liberal federal court system second guessing all of Trump’s actions and decisions. Disgusting. Simply disgusting.
While I disagree with this ruling, unlike several other judges of late, this case has been kept to the proper scope of the individual migrants whose legal challenge it is and within the purview of the court rather than issuing some outscale nationwide injunction.
I don’t think this particular judge was overreaching.
It’s called habeas corpus, and it is literally one of the things this country’s founders fought for.
Send them to Martha’s Vinyard. Drop them off at Obama’s house.
The two jokers who claimed they do not belong to the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua —
— how many tattoos do they have? And which ones?
You’ll figure out whether they’re lying or not just by reading the tattoos. Perhaps the judge needs a Powerpoint presentation.
I’ll settle for El Salvador. Their Pres wants em.
Hmmm – isn’t Guantanamo an American property? Legally, what is the difference between a prison in Baltimore and one in Guantanamo?
If the issue is moving them outside of the state of New Mexico where they are currently detained. I might understand better.
But I am not an educated guy. Can someone explain all this for me please?
As I understand it, it’s a phantom zone as the territory is Cuban, but we have a valid lease on it from the Cuban government. At least, the previous Cuban government.
I would say that it serves as a high security embassy to Cuba.
That said, I believe there are some freed up spaces in that DC gulag where they held the J6 political prisoners.
But then, the DC judiciary would just release them….
1. All federal courts below SCOTUS are creatures of congress; shut them down
2. “General police powers” are reserved – not delegated – so the feds have no constitutional authority to run criminal courts, anyway, other than the specific federal crimes listed in the Constitution (piracy, kidnapping counterfeiting)
3. Enforcing the law is the primary role of the executive. If Trump wants to enforce sentences in GitMo, no court can legally stop him.
Note that you can have 2 or 3, but you can’t have both… unless the criminals were convicted of counterfeiting, piracy, violations of international law, or treason. (Not kidnapping.)
Put them in the Epstein suite at Rikers?
We need to start impeaching these judges.
If they are infringing on the executive turf, then can they be arrested? Any excuse will do, haul the judge to jail. That would be very interesting.
No, they can’t be. They, however, can have you hauled to jail if you disobey a court order, even an illegal one.
Good for thee, but not for me.
Just like Congress.
the problem is finding a House member with the balls
You mean Big Balls
That would require Congressional Republicans to go on record and most them do not want to do that. The communists would obviously vote against it.
“The three men have been in ICE custody in New Mexico since late 2023.
Their filing stated that the New Mexico court “should retain jurisdiction over their pending habeas petitions even upon transfer” to Guantanamo Bay.”
I have it on good authority from Joe Biden that the chief executive has plenary power over immigration and the border.
Also, I have it good authority from Barack Obama that federal authority over immigration and the border cannot be usurped by state authority.
I guess these points only apply when a democrat is in the white house.
They are illegal aliens. They have no Constitutional rights.
The constitution says otherwise.
The Constitution says no such thing. Supreme Court decisions have, but the court often finds rights that don’t seem to exist except by interpreting the Constitution in a deceptively broad manner.
The constitution says exactly that, explicitly. “Any person” means any person. Every human being has the same rights; the constitution protects those of every person who is within its reach, either by being in US territory, OR by being a US citizen or resident. The only people it doesn’t protect are those who are neither citizens nor residents, AND are located in a place where US law doesn’t apply.
Okay, but I still don’t like it!
Cool. Send them to be held at some remote Camp in Alaska.
Time for Trump to engage in some civil disobedience
This judicial interference has got to stop.
I disagree. See Milhouse above. When carefully considered, the only way our Republic can work is if everybody (any person) on US soil enjoys the same rights as others regardless of status unless those rights have been duly reduced by due process in a court of law. It’s unhandy, time consuming, sometimes wrong, and sometimes just downright pestiferous, but it’s the best we have seen anyone come up with (until Jesus returns). Maranatha!
The Supermax in Florence Colorado is nice this time of year
My own preference is to airdrop them in the middle of the Gulf of America.
To be clear, drop them from 35,oo0 feet, no parachute.
You’re not a sociopath; you’re Just an Excitable Boy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZokPAuhD6k&pp=ygUVanVzdCBhbiBleGNpdGFibGUgYm95
Haven’t you already used that one today? C’mon man at least be original when you’re down to ad hominem attacks b/c you don’t have a logical argument.
You know, calling people names just makes them ignore you and want to vote for Trump.
I wouldn’t do that as they might swim to an American Beach. Deport them to the country they came from and if the country tries what Columbia did then put them in a parachute and through them out over the countries main airport.
And you’re just…. this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs
The issue here is the CT ruled on a speculative injury v an actual injury. Even if there was a transfer order to Gitmo which at this point there isn’t, there’s zero evidence that the speculative ‘injury’ re distance and physical accessibility/proximity to counsel or CT would either occur or that if it did occur that it would be any more onerous than the Covid lock down era. If all the BS during Covid passed constitutional muster, including the restrictions on issues of access imposed by Judicial Branch, then the same/similar actions are equally constitutional now. IOW if zoom was totes ok as a substitute for in person access then it is totes ok now.
Who funds the challenges?
I’m a little confused by this ruling. The left used the “Gitmo is American soil” argument when launching lawsuits to get the terrorists held there released and everyone seemed to be all onboard. If that’s established law then why can’t these illegals be detained there while waiting either extradition or a trial for crimes and get the same legal representation as they would if they were moved to any other place under US control such as from California to Texas as someone pointed out. People in detention are moved around the country all of the time and lawsuits to force states to house prisoners convicted of crimes in their state have always been denied.
I am no lawyer, but that sounds logical. Not that logic enters legal decisions that often….
I, also, am not a lawyer. There be lawyers lurking about who might be able to enlighten us more, but the plaintiffs in this case have raised a legal issue so let’s let them have their day(s) in court as we try to right this ship of state and restore it to full constitutionality.