Judge Blasts Trump Admin’s Discovery Objections in Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case
The alleged MS-13 gang member’s lawyers complained that the administration has been stonewalling to discovery questions.
Maryland Judge Paula Xinis is at it again with President Donald Trump’s administration regarding Kilmar Abrego-Garcia.
The alleged MS-13 gang member’s lawyers complained that the administration has been stonewalling on discovery questions.
Xinis slammed the administration’s objection to certain discoveries because the “requests are based on the ‘false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.'”
The judge claimed “the falsehood lies” in the administration’s supposed “mischaracterization” of the order to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.
“Defendants’ objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations,” wrote Xinis.
Xinis also shot down the administration’s argument over privilege because it did not provide “any supporting information.”
But then Xinis strays into a territory not used for discovery disputes:
For weeks, Defendants have sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this Court’s orders. Defendants have known, at least since last week, that this Court requires specific legal and factual showings to support any claim of privilege. Yet they have continued to rely on boilerplate assertions. That ends now. If Defendants want to preserve their privilege claims, they must support them with the required detail. Otherwise, they will lose the protections they failed to properly invoke. Accordingly, by no later than 6:00 PM on April 23, 2025, Defendants shall supplement their answers and responses to provide the specific legal and factual bases for each asserted privilege and produce a privilege log that fully complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.
5/ FYI: This is NOT how most discovery disputes are handled. pic.twitter.com/Ybsbq3CWxF
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025
From what I can remember, in an early law class, a judge handled a discovery dispute with motions and sometimes assigned it to a magistrate judge.
If I am wrong, please correct me. (I have to leave soon for an appointment but will update if needed.”
Xinis also describes the government taking Abrego Garcia as a “lawless seizure.”
Um, no it was not. Abrego Garcia was an illegal alien when he was here.
This is getting ridiculous. Xinis is making the case personal and her distaste for the administration is unbecoming.
You have to hide your TDS better, judge.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
A cretinous judge spouts off. Again.
Xinis is in dire need of a release of dopamine and oxytocin to increase feelings of happiness and other positive emotions to counteract the “stress hormone,” cortisol.
Why waste them on miserable harpies? I doubt that leftists produce any positive substances, anyway.
True. But what I just described is the chemical reaction to something normal people refer to as an orgasm.
Something she desperately needs.
She needs a few more cats and a few cases of box wine.
It’s a moot case at this point. The El Salvador citizen is in El Salvador. The El Salvadoran President has stated that citizen will not be returned to the US. Unless this judge thinks she can order the US president to do certain foreign policy acts. This is ridiculous.
“It’s a moot case at this point.”
It’s all over but the crying.
So why can’t the Trump administration issue a polite request to El Salvador to release the gang-banger wife-beating illegal alien to US custody? Just simple official note (be sure to nudge-nudge, wink-wink) and let EL Salvador just as politely decline, indicating that they are officially refusing to collaborate in a conspiracy to commit immigration crimes?
That will Shirley satisfy the quasi-legalistic requirements of this collectivist judge, get the administration off the hook while satisfying the deranged requirement that they “facilitate” his release. “Hey, we tried, they refused. Whatcha gonna do?”
They could, but why would they do that? We don’t want him back and El Salvador will keep him, giving us full deniability. Making that request could result in having to receive him which would mean we would have deport the dirtbag again.
Dem judges know they have been nominated for lifetime positions because leftists have been persuaded the person will reliably advance the leftist agenda. Judge Xinis is just holding up her side of the bargain.
What the hell do they expect to accomplish? The gang banger is back safe and sound in his own country and he’s not coming back here. So what is the point of this litigating?
The point is to punish Trump. Isn’t that obvious?
This isn’t the punishment they think it is.
Apparently Paula Xinis was absent the day they taught law at law school.
Look, the sign of a mature professional in any walk of life is acknowledging that sometimes you have to act in opposition to your own closely held beliefs if that’s where the facts lead you.
Judge Xinis doesn’t seem to recognize this.
When I read the headline I thought it was a real judge.
How did this discovery dispute come about? A letter to the Judge? A call to the Judge? A motion to compel more specific answers? It’s been my experience that a conference call will be scheduled for a discovery dispute where both sides make their arguments and not a Judge issuing an Order to compel, which is essentially what the Judge did here.
See attached:
https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/BEST%20PRACTICES%20FOR%20DISCOVERY%20IN%20FEDERAL%20COURT%20final.pdf
Another Federal District Judge showing severe mental strain. Maybe they can put Boasberg in an adjacent cell to this loon in the mental institution, that way they can chat over their morning tapioca as they wait for their next dose of thorazine to calm them down.
1. Did she ever consider that Due Process for illegal invaders is nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution ?
2. Did she ever consider Due Process applies to citizens; That the illegal invaders were offered Due Process if they followed our Immigration Laws and entered the Country legally?
3. The Democrat judges, (that obliterates Joanna Robert’s claims that there are no Obama Judges) only recognize Due Process for their exit; not their entrance.
4. Let’s saddle our kids and Grandkids with huge taxes to care for illegal invaders;
5. Let’s saddle our kids and Grandkids with huge taxes to litigate the removal of illegals , especially gang-bangers.
6. Let’s give them the right to vote so they + the Democrats can make our country equitable.<p
I practiced law for over 30 years, but I never realized that the Due Process Clause was a suicide pact – I'm being re-educated. . . .
Obviously, an example of Georgetown Law being benighted in 1967.
1. Court order that he can’t be deported to El Salvador was never appealed
2. For the court to be ignorable in his case means it is ignorable in the case of you
3. Our judiciary is all that kept us from falling into becoming the UK or France or Spain or one of another EU countries that are borderline dictatorship
4. If there is compelling evidence he was part of MS 13 his return would be remanded to custody in an American Prison pending appeal, followed by the government winning the case
Can we please stop?
Biden ignoring the courts would never have been cheered by you.
Eisenhower teaches people how to deport because he did it to millions making Trump look like a chump in comparison could we get the Eisenhower method (legal, streamlined and easily defensible should anyone be dumb enough to take the administration to court)?
Ignoring the courts is a precedent that the Democrats 100% will follow.
Would you have wanted Obama in his 3 terms to have had the ability to ignore a court order? I certainly don’t like that image and neither should you.
What court order has the administration ignored? SCOTUS ordered Xinis to clarify her order and remanded the case to her court. She has not clarified her order. She’s the one ignoring SCOTUS. She’s the one who has a duty to comply with an order before she can continue to proceed.
DOJ should stop f**king around and tell the court “If ICE ignored an order from an immigration court (an Article II court), the executive has jurisdiction to hear any complaint about the failure and to rectify the situation in a manner it sees fit. The judiciary has no authority over what is a matter internal to the executive branch. Article III courts have no more jurisdiction to enforce an order issued by an Article II court than the executive has to dictate the outcome of a case to an Article III court.”
“3. Our judiciary is all that kept us from falling into becoming the UK or France or Spain or one of another EU countries that are borderline dictatorship”
Of all the retarded things you say here, this is pretty close to the top of the list.
It appears that TDS triggers a steep decline in cognitive ability.
Cheer on Garcia. Yea Garcia!
The man has been deported to El Salvador. He is a citizen of El Salvador. The President of El Salvador has stated this man will not be released.
The case is mooted.
What, is this judge going to order an invasion of El Salvador to retrieve him? The case is moot. Beyond that, since there are certain “facts on the ground” there is no remedy the Court can order because the Court has no jurisdiction over El Salvador.
The best the Court can do is order the Executive Branch to ask El Salvador nicely to return him. That is the only remedy the Court has the power and jurisdiction to offer.
The case is now mooted.
The executive would have no obligation to make such a request because the judicial has no authority to order the executive to take diplomatic actions.
Never has any commenter been as adamant as you to be wrong on every issue vehemently.
He can be deported BECAUSE HE IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN.
No other reason is needed.
He can ONLY be deported to his country of origin. No judge in the US has the power to order the government of another country to accept an illegal alien into their nation.
This entire farce needs to end.
“Our judiciary is all that kept us from falling into becoming the UK or France or Spain or one of another EU countries that are borderline dictatorship”
It’s still early, but that’s the most hilariously naive claim I’m likely to read today.
1. The constitution does guarantee due process to absolutely everyone, even those here illegally. No one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
2. However due process is not involved here, because removal is not a criminal penalty. The plaintiff’s claim is not for due process but for habeas corpus. And absolutely everyone is entitled to that. Congress can’t make laws that exempt certain people from it.
The government can’t just grab someone off the street and deport them; if it could, what’s to stop it happening to you or me? In the general case, it needs at least a valid order of removal from an immigration “court”. In this case, as I understand it, there was such an order, but it specifically said “not good for El Salvador”. So he was deported without a valid order.
To which, as I understand it, the government invokes the Enemy Aliens Act, and says members of MS-13 and TdA don’t need removal orders. But consider the case of prisoners of war. It’s well established that they are not entitled to habeas corpus, and can be imprisoned without any court hearing, but that’s only if they admit that they are POWs. If they dispute their status and claim not to be POWs they’re entitled to a habeas-like hearing that is limited to the question of whether they are or are not. If they are, then the inquiry stops there. If they are not, then they are entitled to the full habeas hearing.
Likewise in this case, even if we accept that MS-13 and TdA members may be removed without orders, if they dispute that they are members then they’re entitled to a hearing on that question. The findings of an immigration “court” are irrelevant to that; a real court must review the evidence de novo.
However the case is moot because the act cannot be undone. So, assuming that the Executive Branch has engaged in mis-conduct, what is the appropriate action by the Court to punish the Executive Branch?
To put a finer point on your question, is an Article III court the proper venue to rectify the failure of the executive to abide by an order of one of its own administrative (Article II) courts? I think not. I think this is an internal matter for the executive branch to resolve, as errors of lower Article III courts are matters for resolution by other Article III courts (incl. SCOTUS).
It’s long.
It’s wrong.
And it’s yet another ‘more in sorrow than in anger’ defense of evil.
Where is the evil?
Right here–
The government can’t just grab someone off the street and deport them; if it could, what’s to stop it happening to you or me? In the general case, it needs at least a valid order of removal from an immigration “court”. In this case, as I understand it, there was such an order, but it specifically said “not good for El Salvador”. So he was deported without a valid order.
The leftists demand that each of the millions of illegals they’ve imported into our country cannot be deported without a court appearance.
Millions of court appearances. Millions
They then suggest that, if they can do it to illegal aliens, they can do it to you. Really? How? YOU have proof of citizenship. When they say ‘Are you an American citizen, your answer, without hesitation, is yes.
And a judge, a leftist judge, decided that they could order a foreign nation to accept a Salvadoran criminal? Because some soft brained leftist says that Mexico or Columbia or Canada has to take in this criminal because he doesn’t want to be sent back to his country.
Since when do judges –any judges– dictate foreign policy?
The evil is the defense of how the left has twisted the American justice system into this hideous edifice of weaponized injustice.
I concur… but would like to add that the evil is the idea that illegals who have violated our laws are given any kind of consideration of due process – and the fact that Americans would demand that illegal invaders are welcome to this process as if our Constitution is a suicide pact is beyond me.
For an American with any ounce of brains to claim that removal of illegal invaders is tantamount to any American being captured and deported is idiotic in the extreme.
To think that a group of jack booted masked enforcers will just decide to roam the streets and round up Americans and put them on a plane to an El Salvador prison tells me how rotted the left and many on the right are.
The due process of law guaranteed in the 5th Amendment isn’t “due” because the “process” only applies when life, liberty, or property is threatened. Those illegally in the country have no liberty interest in remaining here, as they are, by definition, here illegally. The “process” that Garcia was “due” was a hearing in an immigration court (he had two such hearings). End of story. Whether or not someone illegally in the country is a member of a gang is irrelevant with respect to the executive’s authority to deport. Gang membership is, at this time, only being used to set priority for deportation. If an illegal alien is now mistakenly deported as a gangster, oops! Sorry, not sorry, you were eligible to be deported anyway. (Also note that in both immigration court hearings, the court found the government’s evidence of gang affiliation credible.)
Gang members tattoos are speech, that being the case those tattoos admit their membership. It is fitting that tattoos meant to project fear is self incriminating.
Tattoos are not proof of gang membership. Literally millions of people who are not gang members have tattoos. If the government alleges that a specific tattoo is proof of gang membership it must present that evidence to a neutral finder of fact. It can’t just allege it and demand to be taken at its word.
Why oh why do these progressives cannot understand that they are creating dangerous precedents when they do stuff like this?
The judge and her fellow progressives are setting the stage for retaliation and hoping for a tit-for-tat resonse that will destroy our country?
OH!! Wait!! That’s their goal!!!
The Supreme Court order in this case is 9-0.
9-0 telling her to get back in her lane and give the proper deference to the executive branch
It was 9-0 that the deportation was illegal, and upholding the part of her order that requires the government to “facilitate” his return, but sending back for clarification the part that also requires the government to “effectuate” it. SCOTUS didn’t say that part was wrong either, it just pointed out that it isn’t clear what this means, and that in clarifying it the judge should bear in mind that she can’t order the president to conduct negotiations with a foreign power, let alone dictate the terms of those negotiations, so “effectuate” had better mean something that doesn’t involve that.
Facilitate how? Aside from a plane ride, which the executive branch has agreed to, there is nothing for the judicial branch to be involved in.
The legislative branch gets to declare war, the Senate ratifies treaties, otherwise foreign policy is up to the executive branch, which is entirely within a President.
There is nothing case or controversy here, it is moot and should be dismissed.
there is no such thing as an illegal deportation of an illegal alien.
Whether or not Xinis’ order was legal depends entirely on how she defines the term “facilitate.” SCOTUS did not say the order was legal. It requires clarification of the term before it can make that decision, should the administration have an objection to the definition.
Andrew Branca on his podcast said the deportation was legal, because once he was declared a terrorist (admitted member of MS-13, and Trump declared MS-13 a terrorist organization) his stay of deportation to El Salvador became invalid.
I dunno, that’s just what he said.
MarkS, the Supreme Court unanimously said you are wrong, and this deportation was illegal.
DaveGinOnly, you are incorrect. Xinis does not have to define “facilitate”; the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this part of the order is indeed valid and binding and needs no clarification. The only term it told Xinis to clarify was “effectuate”.
Artichoke, with all due respect to Branca, he’s wrong. The Supreme Court said 9-0 that the deportation was indeed illegal.
rbj1, “facilitate” doesn’t even need a plane ride. But there’s also “effectuate”. The Supreme Court said it couldn’t rule on that because it didn’t know what the judge meant by it. It sent it back to the judge to clarify it, reminding her that she has no power to interfere with the USA’s foreign relations, so her definition had better not involve that.
There was a do not deport to El Salvador order
He was deported to El Salvador without that being appealed
During appeals process both sides have discovery rights
Could we stop with this? It is a losing case. I do not care how bad this man is he has due process rights, the administration is under a federal order from the Supreme Court of the United States to facilitate his return (a 9-0 verdict by the way).
The only thing that saved the United States from going the way of France, or the UK is our strong court system could we stop undermining it? I do not give a dam about this man we can not afford to weaken the judiciary.
Democrats could easily win in 2028 this the ultimate stop it you would not like it coming from Democrats moment, and it could be coming from Democrats in a mere 4 years.
Pretend to care about long term consequences.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia rotting in an American Prison for a few months and his attorneys getting their chance to see what the evidence he was part of MS 13 is……I can’t for the life of me imagine an easier decision of give that or dramatically weaken our judiciary.
Eisenhower managed millions deported without ever being in conflict with the courts. Think about that before defending bad behavior because it avoids short term embarrassment.
Tell us why an Article III court has jurisdiction to hear a complaint concerning the executive’s failure to abide by an “order” issued by an Article II court. SCOTUS has ultimate oversight of Article III courts. The POTUS has ultimate oversight of Article II courts (administrative courts within the executive). I see no clear reason why an Article III judge should have any authority over an issue that’s entirely a matter internal to the executive branch. An executive branch court issued an order. ICE, an executive agency, disregarded the order. Does the executive have any authority to hear complaints over processes that take place in Article III courts, and then order those courts to behave according to the executive’s determinations? Of course not! Why would you think opposite would be OK? Does Garcia have a right to even attempt to enforce an order from an immigration court? Even that isn’t clear.
Lawyers get to appeal to a courtroom when the rights of their client to representation is undermined by refusal of the state to produce evidence that is what.
Watch this video as many times as it takes for the lesson to sink in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
Do not self delude the next Democrat President is watching happily because THE COURT SYSTEM IS THE ONLY THING THAT STOPPED US FROM BECOMING THE UK.
Garcia has rights under our law, and his lawyers are entitled to discovery.
The SUPREME COURT ordered the facilitation of his return for the court case.
There was a NO DEPORTATION TO EL SALVADOR COURT ORDER.
You can’t ignore a court order period. The Democrats are going to use this precedent on you and me if it is allowed to stand.
Danny, as I understand it the order not to deport to El Salvador was not from a real court but from an “immigration court”, which is within the executive branch, not the judicial branch. That’s why DaveGinOly is asking you why a real court is enforcing that order.
It’s a little confused, and I haven’t dug into it to any depth, but I gave my understanding of the situation in a comment just a little above this one. As I understand it this is not about due process (which only applies in criminal cases) but about habeas corpus, which applies to everyone at all times. If the government can simply assert that someone is an enemy alien, grab him off the street, and deport him, then none of us is safe from it happening to us too. Just as if the government can assert that someone is an enemy combatant and “capture” him as a “prisoner of war”, none of us is safe. That’s why alleged POWs are entitled to a hearing on the question, and the same would apply to alleged alien enemies.
If the government can simply assert that someone is an enemy alien, grab him off the street, and deport him, then none of us is safe from it happening to us too
But none of that happened.
Garcia had not one, but two deportation orders. He had been, in court, found to be an illegal alien.
This is not in dispute. He was not simply ‘grabbed off the street’ and pretending it was so does not make that pretense real.
The ONLY issue is that some soft brained leftist judge ordered foreign heads of state to accept this particular illegal into their countries.
Something they can’t do. Nor can the Supreme Court do so.
Nor can the president.
The only place an illegal alien can be sent back to is their nation of origin –unless some other nation volunteers to accept them.
No one can in the US can order nation Y to accept a criminal from nation X.
Again, pretending this is so does not make it real.
Habeas can be suspended in war time or during an invasion, and when public safety requires it. Trump has declared an invasion and the necessity to remove certain illegal aliens to protect public safety. He’s effectively suspended habeas already.
Also, nearly everything I’ve seen about habeas refers to “prisoners,” the “imprisoned,” “suspects,” etc. It’s entirely impractical to ship illegals home one by one, so they are assembled in camps, processed, and shipped by the plane load. While in camp, they are “detainees” and not “prisoners.” Convicts are imprisoned as punishment for crimes. The illegal aliens are being held for “deportation,” which is not considered a “punishment.” It may be that habeas does not apply to them in any event.
Azathoth pretends not to understand that under the government’s position this could easily happen to him. If there is no hearing by an independent finder of fact then the government can claim he is an illegal alien, an enemy alien, a prisoner of war, and not entitled to habeas corpus. The only protection any of us have against that happening to us is our right to habeas, to have the government explain to a judge why it is holding us, and have the judge decide whether the reason is good enough.
DaveGinOly, you seem to have misread the constitution. For habeas to be suspended both conditions are required: there must be a war or invasion, and public safety must require it. One of those without the other is insufficient.
Article III court
an Article II court
This is something that loads of people seem to be ignoring.
What’s interesting is the Left is insisting on the enforcement of the immigration court’s order to not deport Garcia to El Salvador. This an appropriately left-handed way of admitting the (Article II) court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the person of Garcia, and that its determinations, findings, opinions have effect (within the executive branch). All of this admits this is an internal matter for the executive branch to settle.
He’s not a citizen of the US
He’s home now
The court order was ignored.
Would you have liked if the Biden Administration had ignored court orders on releasing Jan 6th people? Or court orders to drop cases?
You are delusional if you think the next Democrat President will not walk in and order arrests of all pardoned Jan 6th protestors with this precedent.
The economy is doing poorly because of the tariffs and if it is like this in 2028 we will have another Democrat as president.
Watch as many times as it takes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
No, it wasn’t. The order was rendered null and void.
//There was a do not deport to El Salvador order//
This is an irrelevant fact. Witholding orders do not apply to designated terror orgs. The prior order became a nullity when Trump and Rubio made said designation.
And he’s entitled to a hearing on whether he is in fact a member of a designated terror org. No one can be held prisoner or deported just on the government’s say-so. Even someone whose alleged status is sufficient grounds for imprisonment or deportation is entitled to have that status established by a court.
He received two hearings on the matter, and both determined he was part of the org. He was also determined so by law agencies outside of the court. It is irrefutable he is an MS-13 member, and that he has already received fair review by the courts.
He knows that.
But he has to keep repeating the propaganda.
The man was an illegal immigrant. That had been firmly established.
He could be deported for that, and that alone.
Everything else Milhouse and the other leftists are screaming about is obfuscation.
No, he has not had even one hearing on it. Immigration “court” hearings don’t count; immigration judges are the government.
Unlike you my wife and I have been through the immigration system – and it does not work the way you describe. If you are not a citizen or legal resident and you are here without a valid visa or a VWP you can be deported immediately – period.
Nor can an illegal being deported request an appeal to deport and get to stay in the US indefinitely. NOTHING in the law requires an appeal of the decision to deport. Even if a hearing is granted NOTHING in the law says the illegal must be allowed to stay in the US pending the outcome. What used to happen was the illegal was deported back to their home country pending the result of the hearing, or (in rare cases cases) a third country. The situation were tens of thousands of illegals get to stay in the US indefinitely awaiting the outcome of the hearing is a complete bastardization of immigration law.
What you are callings hearing is actually an appeal of the original decision to deport. The law says illegals MAY get a formal appeal – it does not say they WILL get an appeal.. Federal judges who insert themselves into the immigration process are staging a coup.
The right of habeas corpus is absolute.
No, he isn’t. That finding was already made.
They can appeal while he cools his heels in El Salvador. He is their citizen. We have no right to make any demands regarding their citizens.
And those citizens have no right to make any demands of the US.
You are correct. But jailhouse attorneys who only want to make money keep inserting BS commentary so they can pad their paychecks.
The case is a win because the dirt bag is now sitting jail, probably until he is dead.
An egg fell and broke. Now it’s broken and it will not be repaired no matter what courts demand.
He’s in El Salvador, and the ES president says no he won’t be allowed to leave the country. That’s it, end of story.
Both the first judge that ordered him deported and the second judge who said anywhere but El Salvador said in their ruling that the police and immigration authorities proved he was a member of MS-13. No one disputed that until they accidentally sent him to El Salvador. He never denied it until they sent him to El Salvador. I mean really what Trump should do is ask El Salvador as a favor to dump him in Honduras or Columbia and be done with it. They have a deportation order that says they can send him anywhere that will take him other than El Salvador. Send him somewhere else and the judge no longer has any jurisdiction whatsoever.
There was no mistake in sending him to his country of origin. His claim of being threatened y a gang went away when that gang was entirely locked up in El Salvador’s prisons.
Which is where the locals promptly put him – in the same or a similar prison.
His claim ranks next to “I can’t breathe”.
and, according to Andrew Branca, it became null and void when Trump declared his gang, MS-13, to be terrorists. Now SCOTUS says Trump should “facilitate his release from custody”. What does that mean? Can I facilitate you, far away from me, to drive to the grocery store? I guess I could let you charge the gasoline on my credit card, but if you just refuse to go to the grocery store, isn’t that all I can do?
What “immigration judges” claimed is irrelevant. The case is in front of a real judge now, and she doesn’t believe those “findings”. She says she has not seen any persuasive evidence that he is MS-13, and as far as she knows there has never been any such evidence, and the two “immigration judges” were full of it. As they often are. If the government refuses to show her the evidence then that proves it knows it’s worthless.
Her arguments show she is not a real judge by qualification, but by political affiliation alone.
If only Art III US District CT Judges are ‘real’ Judges then the rulings of Military Courts are bogus. As are all the administrative agency rulings from SEC and so forth.
Aliens are subject to removal.Removal isn’t a ‘punishment’ so there’s no life, liberty, property interest claims to adjudicate. The burden is on the Alien to prove they qualify for some exemption from deportation. That’s a long standing presumption.
The only questions here are:
1. Does this Alien currently have permission to be in the USA? Nope, his grant of permission was revoked.
2. Does the Executive have authority to revoke permission? Yes. Congress granted that power to the Executive and very importantly the discretion on when/how to use that Foreign Policy/Nat Security power.
3. Is the use of this power justiciable? Nope.
Every Alien can be deported for some reason or frankly no reason at all b/c they don’t have any right to remain in the USA such as a Citizen possesses. Once it is determined this person is an Alien that’s it.
If the government refuses to show her the evidence then that proves it knows it’s worthless.
No. It proves they don’t think she has jurisdiction.
are we all now alowed to determine which judges are and are not, “real”?
Nope. The constitution does that in giving different courts jurisdiction over different matters.
Of course. The ORACLE “Milhouse” has spoken.
(Insert thundering echo chamber voice here) “I am the all powerful MILHOUSE and I shall be obeyed!”
SCIENCE!!!
Any “judge” who is part of the executive branch is not a real judge. By definition only members of the judicial branch are judges. Federal judges are only those appointed under Article 3.
For ‘real judge’ read ‘leftist judge”
For “she has not seen any persuasive evidence that he is MS-13” read ‘she will ignore any factual evidence that contradicts the narrative’
For “If the government refuses to show her the evidence then that proves it knows it’s worthless.” read ‘these cases are all over the internet and this judge is not disputing ANY of that–she’s focused on the not to El Salvador part..
Nobody gives a damn what that communist traitor in robes believes. She is a retard,.
Why has a matter heard by an Article II court been appealed to an Article III court? Why is an Article III court meddling in processes that are entirely within the authority of Article II officers to decide? Garcia hasn’t claimed citizenship. He can be deported. ICE (Article II) officials ignored an order from an Article II court. Please explain why an Article III court has any jurisdiction to dictate how another branch of government rectifies the mistake of ignoring an order from another official within the same branch. Please explain why an immigration court’s “do not deport to X” order has any enforcement effect on ICE or why an immigration court can expect Article III courts to provide for its (the immigration court’s ) orders. (Which leads me to another thought. If an immigration court’s order is ignored by ICE, does the immigration court have any authority to enforce its own orders? If it does not, wouldn’t that make its orders merely advice or direction? Also, is there another Article II office to which the deportee can appeal to have the order enforced? If not, this would also suggest the “order” is merely direction or advice.)
Should have been:
Please explain why an immigration court’s “do not deport to X” order has any enforceable effect on ICE, or why an immigration court’s order can find enforcement by Article III courts.
So now she’s reversing the immigration judges? And what difference, at this point, does it make? He’s in ES based on findings of those immigration judges, he’s had all the due process due to him, the president of ES will not release him, we will not do a Reagan (invaded Grenada for some stupid reason) and send military in to spring him, end of story.
I suspect she’s using this pretext to investigate the whole deportation system, so she or her liberal colleagues can think of some more TRO’s and preliminary injunctions to throw into the works to gum it up further. It should not be allowed and should be stonewalled. The case is out of her jurisdiction, and it’s absurd to conduct such an investigation in the context of a contempt hearing.
Hey Bill and the rest
You’re all over the road
Andrew Branca can straighten it out.
https://www.youtube.com/live/kqLJcT-CY4w?si=4ijMy0Gz8-rv7dLb
This is a trap like the lawsuit in NY over Trump’s business records. If you pile things up a certain way, jenga-like, you can get some combination of factors that arguably contradicts some rule.
In that case they developed a totally insane bunch of charges, and rammed it through their court and made them stick, even though it was all garbage.
In this case, the underlying facts no longer matter, because nothing apparently constrains a judge when the judge decides to have a temper tantrum and claim contempt. I hope a knowledgeable lawyer can weigh in here and say if there’s a way that Trump can appeal the contempt that, by the look of it, is surely coming.
And what does the appellate body look like? Is it the relevant circuit court? And is it a lefty or righty circuit? Because otherwise Trump may just have to accept the contempt finding and refuse to take any action against his DOJ staff. Hopefully the judge wil be unsuccessful in getting sanctions against them.
The privilege claim is clearly based on the President having sole authority on foreign affairs. Why is the judge ignoring that she is completely outside her authority?
And she’s not a member of a co-equal branch. The three branches are the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court — the Constitution allows Congress to establish lesser courts, but does not give them equal status with the President.
You are wrong. The three branches are the president, congress, and all federal courts. The judicial power vests in all Article 3 courts, not just the supreme court, and they are all the equals of the president.
The judge is too politically ideological and pig-headed to understand the case will most likely turn on the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.
The Government has discretion whether to effectuate, not the judge, even as it must facilitate her whims.
The case should be dismissed a moot. Nothing this Judge could ever order will change the outcome. He is in the custody of El Salvador based on a violation of El Salvador law. The Judge is powerless to order a release from that hold.
A famous world leader once asked how many divisions are available to my opposition. Franklin Roosevelt ignored the courts with great success even threatening to “pack the court” perhaps such measures are appropriate again. Was not so long ago that the Biden administration floated the same idea?
FDR never ignored the courts. And “the switch in time that saved nine” is a myth. It never happened. The vote in question took place before FDR announced his court-packing plan, so it couldn’t possibly have been influenced by that plan.
SCOTUS REVERSED this judge
There is no order to “return”
According to Andrew Branca “facilitate” means remove domenstic barriers to his release
GArcia had his due process, with counsel present.
The finding confirming he IS MS13 was AFFIRMED on appeal
No, SCOTUS did not reverse the judge. Anyone who claims it did is a liar.
SCOTUS voted 9-0 that the deportation was illegal, and that the judge’s order to “facilitate” his return is valid. It also voted 9-0 that the order to “effectuate” requires clarification; so far the judge hasn’t clarified it, so it’s not that the administration is not bound by it, but that it has no clue what it’s supposed to do. If the judge ever clarifies the term, the administration can either comply, or go back to SCOTUS to appeal it. SCOTUS did remind the judge that whatever she meant by “effectuate” it had better not be something that interferes with the conduct of the USA’s foreign relations.
Here is my real bottom line concern in all this: where is the Supreme Court?
They have allowed this circus to play in the same town for a long time now without either granting it a license or alternately, shutting it down.
This suggests to me a serious disagreement inside the Court. I worry that they cannot reach a true consensus. The activist judges want to exercise their power to control the government… the conservative judges warn that if the court’s reach exceeds its grasp, the other two branches will act to rein the Court in.
Then perhaps they either need to shit or get off the pot.
For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow… The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.
–THOMAS JEFFERSON, TO SPENCER ROANE