Supreme Court Vacates Judge Boasberg’s TROs As To Tren de Aragua Under Alien Enemies Act
Holds venue was improper in DC District Court, case needs to go to Texas, where the TdA members are being held pending removal. But confirms they do get some due process to contest whether they are gang members subject to summary removal.
The legal developments have moved so quickly and in so many places and in so many cases (almost 180), that it’s hard to keep up. I’ve been following Margot Cleveland from The Federalist on X who has been doing an amazing job tracking cases.
The latest is a ruling from the Supreme Court in the case handled by Judge James Boasberg in the D.C. District which has involved some wild things, including an order that the government turn around in mid-flight an airplane carrying members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) out of the country. The Judge appears to claim the government violated his order by not doing so, and we can expect a ruling on contempt any day.
But in other Judge Boasberg news, the Supreme Court considered the more basic issue of whether the case even was proper in the DC District. The government argued that the DC federal court was an improper venue because the complaint was one for Habeas Corpus, which could only be brought in the district in which someone was detained.
The Supreme Court (5-4, with Barret joining the dissenting liberal Justices in part), that Judge Boasberg had no jurisdiction. From the ‘per curiam’ Order:
This matter concerns the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. 10030 (2025). The President issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals “who are members of TdA.” Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a provisionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation…. On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for up to an additional 14 days…. The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders….
We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” …, must be brought in habeas…. Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas…. And “immediate physical release [is not] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.”…. For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action….
The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, 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.
For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay.
I’d call this a partial win for the government. The desire to whisk TdA members out of the country will be subject to judicial review, though it’s unclear what that will look like. At a minimum, the detainee will get to argue that he is not a member of the gang and the government likely will have to prove (not sure by what standard) that the person is a TdA member. So this is likely to slow down the process.
But at least the case is away from Judge Boasberg and future district shopping in detainee cases will be difficult.
As to the contempt proceeding? I think the Judge will push forward. It seems personal to him, as Margot Cleveland notes:
6/ Last week, Boasberg strongly signaled he was going to find probable cause existed that Trump Administration violated his order. I doubt SCOTUS' decision will shake Boasberg from that…my gut is the attacks on his daughter destroyed any judicial restraint he had.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 7, 2025
But can a Judge who never should have had the case in the first place and whose order (turn the planes around) was grossly improper hold someone in contempt for not complying with the order?
BREAKING: The Supreme Court sides with the Trump Administration on the Alien Enemies Act.
Tonight’s decision is a landmark victory for the rule of law. An activist judge in Washington, DC does not have the jurisdiction to seize control of President Trump’s authority to conduct…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) April 7, 2025
UPDATE
DOJ Tells the Judge to drop his contempt proceeding because the TRO he says they violated has just been vacated. LOL.
🚨🚨🚨Trump Administration pounces and says dismiss case and show cause…judge ain't gonna agree to later. Tomorrow should be 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/DnmWdHK7Ln
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Butt-hurt Boasberg will do whatever he can to push on his claim of “contempt”.
Congress should eliminate his position altogether.
Under federal law, I wonder if a judge can even pursue a contempt charge in a case he never enjoyed jurisdiction.
Damn right there is contempt for judiciary, If Roberts was thinking much about this, he would understand that not reigning these judges in negatively impacts the whole branch, and Robert’s personal reputation.
At this point, the entire Judiciary is contemptible. Roberts is merely presiding over the demise of the judiciary as a fair and equitable venue and should now be ignored.
You made your decision, now go ahead and enforce it.
Tell me, Master Sergeant, what percentage of the “order followers” in the current military and security apparat would use that contempt order as justification for removing Trump as part of “upholding the Constitution”? As we saw with the refusal to follow the instructions to produce the Epstein files in SDNY, not to mention the 5000 FBI agents nationwide who were good to follow orders and arrest the J6 protesters, that number isn’t zero.
“reining in” please. Like one does to a mule. Neither Trump nor the judge (particularly the judge who doesn’t even have jurisdiction) are royal.
reining in, not reigning
Perhaps the open contempt issue should be transferred with the case to a court with jurisdiction.
How can there even be a ‘contempt issue’ when the judge who alleges contempt wasn’t even supposed to be hearing the case? Imagine a state judge in Texas issuing a search warrant for a defendant’s home Georgia who then refuses to comply with the warrant because he properly believes it’s an unlawfully issued warrant. An appellate court quashes the search warrant but the trial judge in Texas still wants to pursue the contempt citation against the defendant who ignored the unlawful search warrant. In that case just like in this case, the judge never enjoyed jurisdictional authority.
Congress should eliminate his position altogether.
______________________________________________
agree–a lot of folks around here are in contempt of him and we’re a helluva long way from dc
Seemingly if jurisdiction was lacking then any orders in the proceeding for which that court had no jurisdiction are also void ab initio. So how could you be in contempt of an order without jurisdiction.
Yup. There can be no civil contempt remedy, as it is limited to forcing the party in contempt to obey the order. If there’s no lawful order (and SCOTUS has no vacated his order and found he lacked jurisdiction), so no civil contempt remedy is available.
In theory, Boasberg could claim that there has been misbehavior committed in his presence that affects the administration of justice (e.g., if a party cusses out the judge in open court, a judge could find that to be contempt) that he can punish. See 18 USC 401(1). But for him to try and fit the government’s actions in respect to an order the SCOTUS has vacated into that narrow and probably inapplicable box would make Boasberg look incredibly petty and foolish, and I think would support motions to recuse him in every other case involving the administration.
I suspect he’ll take the L and move on. If he doesn’t, look for a pretty quick benchslap from the DC Circuit or SCOTUS.
Plus, as someone accurately observed, Trump could short-circuit any attempt to punish anyone for criminal contempt by simply issuing them a pardon.
Boasberg can scream all he wants, but he’s checkmated.
I don’t know how to link to this some I am providing this here in whole, even though some may be mad at me, but this pretty good.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MANDATORY RECUSAL OF JUDGE JAMES BOASBERG
RE: Request for Recusal in All Matters Involving Donald J. Trump or Trump-Associated Defendants
I. Introduction
This brief is submitted to advocate for the recusal of the Honorable Judge James Boasberg from any proceedings involving former President Donald J. Trump or his associates, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, which mandates recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Public trust in the judiciary is foundational to its legitimacy. That trust is not self-sustaining—it is earned and reaffirmed through consistent, principled conduct by judges who uphold not only the law, but the public appearance of fairness and neutrality. As Chief Justice Roberts emphasized in his 2019 Year-End Report, “judges must be scrupulously fair” and the public’s trust depends on judges avoiding even the appearance of political influence.1 Institutions cannot demand respect by fiat; they must continuously behave in a manner that merits it. The judiciary, in particular, must be vigilant against the appearance of impropriety, which poses as much a threat to the rule of law as actual misconduct.
As physicist Richard Feynman remarked in his 1974 Caltech commencement address, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” Feynman was addressing future scientists about scientific integrity, emphasizing that truth-seeking institutions must hold themselves to the highest standards of honesty and self-scrutiny. He argued that science maintains its authority not through institutional power, but through a relentless commitment to intellectual honesty. This same principle applies with equal force to the judiciary. Like science, the law is a truth-seeking enterprise that earns respect through its authoritative commitment to principled reasoning, not through authoritarian demands for deference.
The danger in self-adjudicated standards is precisely this tendency toward self-deception. Judges, like all humans, are susceptible to unconscious bias and self-justification. Therefore, a system that relies solely on a judge’s own discretion to determine recusal—particularly in high-profile, politically charged cases—is structurally flawed. Just as Feynman warned scientists that integrity is essential to the scientific enterprise itself, we must recognize that judicial self-regulation requires extraordinary vigilance. Judge Boasberg’s conduct, affiliations, and rulings give rise not only to the perception of partiality, but to actual patterns that raise serious and legitimate questions about his impartiality and suitability to preside over any matters involving Donald Trump.
II. Legal Standard for Recusal
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Section 455(b)(4) further mandates disqualification where a judge or a family member has a financial or other interest in a party to the proceeding or in the matter at issue.
This standard is objective: it asks whether a reasonable person, fully informed of the relevant facts, would question the judge’s impartiality. It does not require proof of actual bias. In Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of avoiding even an “appearance of partiality” because “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”2
More recently, in Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 1907 (2016), the Court reinforced this principle, holding that “the appearance of bias demeans the reputation and integrity of not just one jurist, but of the larger institution of which he or she is a part.”3 This underscores that recusal is not merely about individual cases but about preserving the judiciary’s institutional integrity.
III. Basis for Recusal
A. Leniency Toward Institutional Insider Kevin Clinesmith
In 2020, FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to deliberately altering an email from the CIA in order to suggest falsely that Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, was “not a source” for the agency, when in fact he had been. This falsified email was used in support of a FISA warrant renewal application.4
Judge Boasberg, who at the time was the Presiding Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), sentenced Clinesmith to 12 months of probation and 400 hours of community service. He imposed no incarceration, despite the severity of Clinesmith’s conduct and the judge’s own institutional role as the guardian of the court Clinesmith had misled. No formal censure or reform followed from the court.
The Special Counsel’s Report by John Durham (May 2023) further criticized the handling of the Clinesmith matter, suggesting that the minimal consequences may have contributed to a culture of impunity within certain institutional contexts.5 According to U.S. Sentencing Commission data, the average sentence for document falsification in federal cases during this period was 17 months of incarceration.6
This stands in stark contrast to Boasberg’s sentencing of political protestors (as described below), and raises a serious question as to whether his judicial leniency was selectively applied in favor of government insiders whose misconduct aligned with efforts to investigate or undermine the Trump campaign.
B. Disparate Sentencing of Nonviolent January 6 Defendants
Judge Boasberg sentenced several nonviolent January 6 defendants to substantial prison terms. Derek Jancart and Erik Rau, both with no prior criminal records and convicted of misdemeanor trespassing, were sentenced to 45 days in jail—among the first nonviolent protesters to receive jail time.7 In another case, Boasberg sentenced Marc Bru to six years in prison for nonviolent conduct during the Capitol breach.
These sentences were far harsher than those imposed by other federal judges in similar cases. For example, Judge Trevor McFadden sentenced Jenny Cudd, also a nonviolent January 6 defendant, to two months of probation and a $5,000 fine despite a prosecution request for jail time. McFadden explicitly questioned the consistency of DOJ’s charging policies and warned against inflating penalties based on political context.8
Statistical analysis reveals that first-time nonviolent trespass cases typically result in probation-only sentences in the federal system.9 The disparity between this norm and Judge Boasberg’s sentencing practices raises legitimate questions about even-handed administration of justice.
Moreover, when compared to the non-custodial sentence Judge Boasberg gave to Kevin Clinesmith—whose falsified email triggered unconstitutional surveillance—the disparity reflects more than mere inconsistency. It reflects a differential standard applied based on political affiliation and institutional status.
C. Misapplication of the Obstruction Statute
Judge Boasberg allowed the use of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)—a law designed to criminalize obstruction of evidence in official proceedings—to be applied expansively to January 6 defendants who were not accused of tampering with evidence. The Supreme Court later ruled in Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024) that the statute’s application in these cases was improper.10
In his concurrence in Fischer, Justice Gorsuch specifically cautioned against “creative interpretations” of criminal statutes to achieve policy goals rather than following the text as written by Congress.11 This judicial overreach is precisely what occurred in Judge Boasberg’s court.
This misapplication led to defective felony convictions, including those over which Judge Boasberg presided. It also gave the DOJ expanded leverage to secure plea deals and escalate sentences under a flawed legal premise. That the Supreme Court had to step in and reject this expansion underscores how far Boasberg and others deviated from the statute’s original intent.
D. Attendance at Trump’s Arraignment: Evidence of Actual Bias
On August 3, 2023, former President Trump appeared in court in Washington, D.C., for arraignment on charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Though he was not assigned to the case, Judge Boasberg attended the proceeding in person.12
There is no record of Judge Boasberg—or any other sitting Chief Judge—ever attending a politically charged arraignment of a defendant not before his court. His presence, in uniform and public view, gave the appearance of institutional endorsement of the prosecution, and arguably applied pressure both symbolically and procedurally.
The American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 1.2, states that a judge “should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.”13 Attendance at a politically charged arraignment of a defendant not before his court directly contradicts this ethical obligation and crosses the line from perceived bias to actual bias.
E. Familial and Ideological Affiliations
Judge Boasberg’s daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for Partners for Justice, a nonprofit group engaged in advocacy against criminal enforcement and immigration-related detentions. The organization’s executive director praised Judge Boasberg’s 2025 ruling that blocked the deportation of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.14
Partners for Justice received $3.3 million in government grants in 2023. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4), a judge must recuse when an immediate family member has a “financial interest” or “any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome” of the proceeding. As a salaried employee of an organization whose funding and mission success are directly impacted by judicial rulings on immigration enforcement—including those made by her father—Katharine Boasberg’s employment creates precisely the kind of interest contemplated by the statute.
This familial relationship creates an appearance of conflict of interest that compels recusal, particularly in cases with political dimensions that overlap with the advocacy goals of Partners for Justice.
F. Failure to Address FISA Court Abuses
As a long-serving member—and eventually Presiding Judge—of the FISA Court, Judge Boasberg had an obligation to address systemic abuses related to surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. These abuses included reliance on the Steele Dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign, and repeated renewal of surveillance warrants that omitted critical exculpatory information.15
While Judge Boasberg did issue an order in December 2019 acknowledging “serious concerns” about the FBI’s submissions,16 critics have argued that his response was insufficient given the severity of the issues identified in the DOJ Inspector General’s report. The minimal disciplinary action taken against Clinesmith further supports this view.
Boasberg took no meaningful public action to hold officials accountable, reform procedures, or restore credibility to the court. His institutional silence compounded public skepticism that the judiciary was functioning as a neutral arbiter.
IV. The Institutional Cost of Inaction
Institutions must not simply demand deference; they must earn it by behaving in a way that is demonstrably above bias. Recusal is not merely about avoiding unfair outcomes; it is about protecting the credibility of the judiciary itself.
As Justice Brandeis famously wrote in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States, “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”17 When judges fail to recuse themselves in cases where their impartiality is reasonably questioned, they teach the public to distrust the justice system.
If Judge Boasberg continues to preside over cases involving Trump or his allies, large portions of the public will—justifiably—question whether they can receive a fair trial. That perception, grounded in a pattern of conduct, undermines not just the legitimacy of one judge, but of the entire institution.
V. Conclusion
Given the outlined pattern of conduct—disparate sentencing, misapplication of law, familial entanglements, public demonstrations of partiality, and a failure to hold government actors accountable—Judge James Boasberg must recuse himself from all proceedings related to former President Trump or his associates. This is not merely a question of appearance. It is a question of constitutional legitimacy and institutional survival.
Returning to Feynman’s wisdom regarding institutional integrity, we must recognize that the judiciary, like science, earns its authority not through power but through adherence to principle. The court system cannot simply declare itself worthy of respect; it must demonstrate its commitment to equal justice through consistent, principled action. A judiciary that demands deference while permitting obvious conflicts to persist becomes authoritarian rather than authoritative. It is precisely this distinction—between power asserted and respect earned—that makes recusal so essential in cases like this one.
As the Supreme Court noted in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 793 (2002), “the legitimacy of the Judicial Branch ultimately depends on its reputation for impartiality and nonpartisanship.”18 Like scientific truth, judicial legitimacy cannot be commanded into existence—it must be cultivated through rigorous self-examination and unwavering commitment to objective standards. Judge Boasberg’s recusal is necessary to preserve that legitimacy.
Respectfully submitted,
[Name / Title or Organization, if desired]
CITATIONS
Footnotes
Chief Justice John Roberts, 2019 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, December 31, 2019. ↩
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988). ↩
Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 1907 (2016). ↩
DOJ Press Release, “FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used in FISA Application,” August 14, 2020. ↩
Special Counsel John Durham, “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns,” May 2023, pp. 306-309. ↩
U.S. Sentencing Commission, “Overview of Federal Criminal Cases, Fiscal Year 2020,” June 2021. ↩
Axios, “First nonviolent Capitol riot defendants sentenced to prison,” September 29, 2021. ↩
ABA Journal, “Federal judge complains prosecutors want more jail time for Jan. 6 breach than for Kavanaugh protests,” February 11, 2022. ↩
U.S. Sentencing Commission, “Federal Sentencing Statistics by District, Circuit & State,” 2020-2022 Compilations. ↩
Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). ↩
Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). ↩
Washington Post & court observers, “Boasberg attends Trump arraignment in person,” August 3, 2023. ↩
American Bar Association, Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 1.2 (2011). ↩
New York Post, “Judge’s daughter works for immigration nonprofit tied to ruling he made,” March 14, 2025. ↩
DOJ Inspector General Report on Crossfire Hurricane (December 2019), pp. 120-190. ↩
FISC Opinion and Order, In re Accuracy Concerns Regarding FBI Matters Submitted to the FISC, No. Misc. 19-02 (Dec. 17, 2019). ↩
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). ↩
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 793 (2002) (Kennedy, J., concurring). ↩
The easiest way to link something from the original source is to copy the “address” (the “www” thing) and paste it into your comment. When reproduced in the comment section it will have that highlighted address showing. I don’t know how people are able to get highlighted text that links to the item. That is some kind of internet magic.
To create a link, enter <a href=”www.whatever/linkylink”>your text goes here</a>
Thanks, I like it even if it is not a link. I would not worry about it.
would love for these gangs to move into his neighborhood
I had a feeling ACB was going to be the weakest link on immigration. If you get some time, read up on People of Praise, the charismatic Catholic movement from northern Indiana. Despite claims to the contrary, they do help ‘facilitate’ immigration through their international evangelization outreach, not too unlike some elements of the LDS church. I’ve been familiar with PoP since I was in college decades ago. It’s an odd, strange group and the focus on the ‘Handmaid/anti-abortion’ stuff during her confirmation process was misplaced. Like most charismatic Catholic groups, very progressive ideals are interwoven in its peculiar dogma. It’s very communal, for instance. Very.
true
I have addressed her sympathies via her wwjd socialist christian pov
I warned that she was a terrible choice even before her nomination – but nobody wanted to listen. It couldn’t have been more obvious that she was a liberal to anyone who bothered to scratch the surface of “Catholic” “woman”.
It’s a leftist cult, throwback to the utopians of the mid 19th century.
The 10 million illegal aliens brought in by Biden will mostly die of old age before they are deported.
“The 10 million illegal aliens brought in by Biden will mostly
die of old agefind a way to vote and forever make the US a singular Democratic Party similar to California before they are deported.”FIFY
Easy:
1. Immediate pardon for any contempt or other charge
2. Don’t deport them because they are gang members, depart them because they are in the country illegally
“the government likely will have to prove (not sure by what standard) that the person is a TdA member”
“Show us your tattoos.”
Gavel. Next.
That’s a data point for sure.
As in the case of the soccer player, it’s not nearly enough for the government to simply point at a tattoo and say “Aha!”. A Real Madrid tattoo doesn’t prove gang membership.
Is he from El Salvador? If so, ANY tattoo proves gang membership, because gangs would kill anyone with a tattoo they didn’t recognize, as it was assumed to be from a different gang.
Crawford is right. Anyone who had MS13 tattooed on their forehead or some other visible body part and had that while in El Salvador is either a member of the gang or someone with a serious deathwish. Same for any of the gangs in Central America.
No, the soccer player is not from El Salvador, he’s from Venezuela. And it’s absolutely not true that gangs kill people for having tattoos they don’t recognize. Nowhere in the world does any gang do that. Tattoos are fairly normal to have in most countries, and the gangs know that.
“they dont recognize”
yeah…but they DO MURDER when they do recognize the “wrong” tatto
Not when it’s all over the face. That’s not common outside of gangs.
Why prove they are tda, just prove they are here illegally and kick them out. I would bet that even if they came in asking for asylum they did not show up for their hearing once they were let go. That right there is enough to deny asylum and give them the boot.
The soccer player was not here illegally. According to his lawyer he came legally on the strength of an asylum application that he had submitted, properly, while abroad; his court date was about to come up in a few weeks, and (again according to his lawyer) he had every intention of showing up for it.
It can certainly raise a rebuttable presumption that if you are wearing the tattoo you have some relation to the organization. We’re not talking about proof beyond reasonable doubt here, more likely a preponderance or “more likely than not” standard, which submitting to the tattoo should meet.
Good news. First it sets clear jurisdictional limits so judge shopping gonna be harder.. Second it blows up the utterly ridiculous argument that the Trump Admin couldn’t use the AEA b/c ‘reasons’. He can, he has and he will.
If I was Tom Homan I’d find some hanging Judge type in west TX or some other Red area who is as prepared to rule against aliens as the venue shopped lefty Judges were prepared to rule for them and build a temp ICE holding facility there to create an advantage….but I’m a bit vindictive in that I believe the only way to end the Judicial gamesmanship is to use the same tactics x2 and shove them so far and so hard up the leftists behind that they get the message to back off. Bullies don’t stop otherwise.
A step in the right direction to tie an action to a specific district, but now there must be action to limit jurisdiction that abuses standing and can bind the nation rather than specific litigants and districts.
Good. That is all that the plaintiffs legitimately demanded, and are obviously entitled to. The government can’t be allowed to just snatch someone off the street and put them on a plane to a hellhole in El Salvador, by claiming that the person is a TdA member, or a terrorist, or here illegally. That claim must be tested by a neutral finder of fact. Once it proves to that person’s satisfaction that the person is as it describes him, then it’s free to deport him. Otherwise none of us are safe; tomorrow it could be you or me or Prof J.
Missing the forest for the tree. The plaintiffs demanded much more, which is why they brought the matter in DC, where it was predicable the judge would NOT be neutral, but side against Trump, in the exercise of politics.
I said “legitimately demanded”.
Their choice of venue made it ILLEGITIMATE. If they had legitimately filed in the right district, it is much more likely they would have legitimately lost, rather than illegitimately won.
Milhouse, you are wasting your voice on the idiots who comment here. Especially “oldschool26”. What a maroon.
That’s MISTER oldschooltwentysix!
Tomorrow it WILL be you… 🙂
Maybe it will be you. And then you’ll complain and call for the law, but the law would be gone because you cut it down.
My comment was based on a classified section of the AEA allowing for deportation of US citizens who have the most down votes on LI… 🙂
All seriousness aside, here’s Andrew Branca
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1dRJZYkMvAaGB
Where’s Judge Dredd when we need him.
Sylvester Stallone call your office.
So.if an Alien already has a removal order issued then you’re ok with it or are demanding an Art III court hearing for all these guys? How about imposing sanctions on the Attorneys, their firms and financial backers who bring BS claims simply to drag out the process for someone who already has a removal order?
A person always has a core habeas right to have an Article 3 judge look at the executive branch’s claim.
As the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene, although it’s long-established that prisoners of war are not entitled to habeas, an alleged POW is entitled to a hearing on whether he is indeed a POW. Once the government establishes that, it ceases to be the judicial branch’s business; but it does have to establish that. .
The question then is whether the government must establish that for each and every TdA member and, if so, how extensive the review must be. One can imagine a scenario (lawyers can imagine lots of scenarios) in which the government is hamstrung by being required to have a hearing on each of (say) 20,000 TdA members (all with the tattoos that make them TdA and not Real Madrid). This gets to the Alinsky rule of making the other side live up to their intentions — if a TdA member gets a hearing, all 20K (or 100K, or however many) get hearings. I suspect the Alien Enemies Act was not written with that in mind.
Yes, it must give each prisoner who challenges his alleged status a hearing.
It doesn’t matter whether the Alien Enemies Act was written with that in mind; Congress has no right to override habeas corpus (except in very limited circumstances that don’t apply here).
Unlawful combatants, which members of terrorist organizations are, are entitled only to a short drop.
Would you have stopped combat operations in WWII if a US citizen who went to Germany and volunteered for the Wehrmacht was known to be in the unit brought under fire? There’s a limit to legal process, and war and invasion is beyond that limit.
You must be arguing with the people here who constantly accuse 0bama of “droning a US citizen”. I’m the one who always refutes those people.
But any alleged Wehrmacht member, regardless of whether he was a US citizen or a German one, who was being held prisoner within the USA, and who challenged his status as a prisoner of war, was entitled to a judicial hearing on that question. The principle that prisoners of war are not entitled to habeas corpus only kicks in once the government has demonstrated to a neutral finder of fact that the person is a prisoner of war, and not some random person who was snatched up for no good reason.
Immigration CT already conduct basic evidentiary hearings to determine whether an Alien is deportable or in some circumstances the AG, Sec.State has used statutory authority to revoke permission to remain. By ignoring that you are effectively arguing that the Govt may not conduct meaningful numbers of deportations. A review by an ART III for each of.the 15-25 million illegal Aliens is as a practical matter impossible. It would slow the pace to less than a crawl and completely choke our Federal Courts.
The only reasonable response to such a state is to immediately suspend all immigration to include issuing visa of any kind; work, Student travel. If they can’t be effectively deported then the only option is to preclude entry.
In sum your position would effectively nullify Congressional Power and Executive Power not to mention the Political will expressed by ‘the People’ in electing politicians to implement their policy preferences.
I submit that there needs to more exercise of humility and restraint by the Judiciary and its surrogates instead of more exercises in supremacy and hubris. The stance you are taking here is one which leads to nemesis aka the Executive and Congress telling the Judiciary to get bent with the support of of the majority of the People. The Judiciary is wholly dependent upon the other branches to willingly comply with its decisions, making decisions which are likely to be ignored is a bad idea b/c eventually they will be.
First of all, the people we’re talking about had no hearing, even in front of an “immigration court”. The government simply snatched them off the street, made up a cock-and-bull story that they were gang members, and put them on a plane.
Second, “immigration courts” are the executive branch. “Immigration judges” are like ALJs, they have no judicial power, they are employees who must do as they’re told. The whole point of habeas corpus is that the executive must justify itself to an outside authority, a neutral authority, who doesn’t work for the president and is not under his orders, and can look at the facts and decide whether the executive is telling the truth.
Milhouse,
‘…the people we’re talking about had no hearing, even in front of an immigration Judge…’
Nope. We.are talking about the category of Alien I explicitly described ‘…an Alien who alphas a removal order…’. Those individuals have already had ‘due process’ when the facts were evaluated and adjudged to be sufficient for issuing the removal order.
Are really arguing that the rulings of.ALJ are illegitimate b/c they are Executive Branch employees? If so doesn’t that require EVERY decision made by EVERY ALJ and of course the decisions of Executive Branch employees which don’t reach ALJ to automatically be reviewed by an Art III Judge? Not as an option but mandatory.
That means every SSA decision about disability should be reviewed. Every immigration decision.All the other agency decisions. Of course that would include decisions favorable to individuals as well as.those favorable to the ‘Gov’t’ b/c political fortunes wax/wane and the decisions of these ’employees’ are, according to you, inherently compromised no matter how they ruled.
Federal District Judges are not gonna be happy with the workload you are putting on them. Gonna be a huge backlog with lots of pretrial confinement stretching for decades. No whining about the length of confinement or the conditions of that very crowded confinement. Nor the extra workload on District Courts who will be working 24/7/365 to slog through the backlog of immigration cases +all the SSA decisions and other Agency decisions you demand review of over the next couple decades.
We should all thank God that our National security is now being guarded by people who disagree with you.
You’ll sing a different tune when it happens to you. What do you imagine prevents it happening to you, if not the constitutional right of habeas corpus, which you’re arguing to abolish? Or do you think it should only be abolished for other people and not for you? If it were abolished for anyone, how would you preserve it for yourself? How would anyone know that you were special?
“Neutral finder of fact” — which Boasberg is not.
And could you point to me in the Constitution where the lesser courts are given any authority over national security matters? Or even the Supreme Court? Just because the Supreme Court has asserted it has such authority does not mean it actually has any.
Nowhere in the constitution is “national security” given as an excuse to override an individual’s inalienable rights, including habeas corpus.
Nowhere in the Constitution does the State of NY have the power to infringe upon the 2A and yet the State of NY does so daily and has for decades. Fix that first, the rights of law abiding US Citizens, then I will be far more receptive to arguments on behalf of those unlawfully present in the USA… and if the Executive withdraws permission by revoking Visa or Asylum or TPS then the individual Alien immediately becomes illegally present.
MS13 and TdA both use specific tattoos to define their members. Just like the Crips and Bloods. Latin Kings, Jamaican Posse. Our own Federal law enforcement has the definitive showings of these tattoos and their gang membership meanings. Bosaberg trusted Clinesmith, but can’t trust the FBI, Homeland Security, US Marahals to id gang members of specific gangs by their tattoos.
And some of the people deported did NOT have those tattoos. That is the point. No neutral finder of fact examined the assertion that each individual deported was TdA, and it turned out that in at least some cases that assertion was a fucking lie.
That is why habeas corpus exists.
Remember that habeas claims have to be filed individually. The illegal gang members already deported all had removal orders.
DOJ needs to file for sanctions against the lawyers and the judge.
No, they didn’t. The guy with the Real Madrid tattoo wasn’t even illegal, let alone a gang member. Or at least so his lawyers claim, and he was entitled to a fair hearing on that claim. What was done to him was not right, and if he survives that El Salvadoran prison I suspect that one day, decades from now, he may win a big judgment against the government.
He won’t win crap.
If you are talking about the “Maryland father” he had an asylum hearing back in 2019 and was denied and ordered deported. Another judge put a hold on his deportation. So he did get a fair hearing and lost, the only question is did the judge have jurisdiction to put a hold on his deportation.
You are correct and Milhouse is wrong. The guy was illegal and was ordered deported.
I am talking about the Venezuelan soccer player who came here legally on a valid asylum application, was due for a court hearing at which he had every intention of appearing and every hope of having it approved, and is now in an El Savador hellhole simply because he had a Real Madrid tattoo.
On a random aside – I would imagine most of the defendant’s attorneys in these matters will be local Public Defenders located where the accused are being held since USAID will no longer be funding the NGO’s who would have paid for attorneys in the past.
I am not sure what impact having a locally hired Public Defender might have in such cases, but I suspect it won’t generally be positive. The defendants will get their due process, but they are unlikely to get O.J. Simpson levels of defense.
Too bad there’s no penalty for this communist traitor judge. Though it probably burns his ass pretty hard that he just got beat by trump. Good
Maybe these obstructionist judges should start sporting powdered wigs.
That would be a welcome bit of flair.
I like the SCOTUS ruling. I don’t mind that defendants once confined can get a hearing before deportation. What if a president Kamala or AOC decided to deport conservatives as being a threat to democracy or something? I’d want some due process protection.
But it kills the judge-shopping which is a major win that hopefully impacts the other judge-shopping the left is doing — although it seems narrowly tailored to the habeas issue which does not apply in most of the other court fights.
As for Boasberg’s conceit of contempt, he can jerk himself off all he wants and take it up with Trump after he leaves office in 2029.
We already had the “deporting conservatives” version of leftist judges locking anyone who dared think the wrong thing or stood peacefully in the wrong place in full swing during Bidens reign of error.
There’s something like 25 million illegal Aliens. For each to hearing in front of an Art III CT is Cray Cray. There’s about 900 Federal District Judges. Lets say they handle temper day five days a week. That’s 50 hearings per.week at 50 weeks per year so 2,500 hearings each. At 900 Judges that’s 2,250,000 hearings per year. Which means that it would take ten to twelve years to run each of the 25 million ish illegal Aliens through. That doesn’t count the couple million ‘asylum’ claims or the millions of Aliens currently present on a Visa of some kind.
SCOTUS is near to forcing the Federal District Judges into a work quota performance system. Each District Judge gonna have to figure out how handle their daily case count without any whining about overload or overwork. Keep in mind they would need to do these 50 per day PLUS their current caseload. Gonna be long days.
Exactly who or what would Boasberg hold in contempt for a case he should never have heard? When an individual says, does, or fails to say or do something specific, this can be grounds for holding the individual in contempt. But how does one hold the government in contempt?
Is it simply going to be a fishing expedition or witch-hunt to see which members of the administration or bureaucracy he can punish?
Curiously Boasberg appears to consider the government’s rush to deport to be sketchy, but the case was filed at 1:30am, Boasberg himself learnt of it about 7:30am, ordered a halt to proceedings shortly thereafter, and scheduled a hearing at 5pm as to whether to expand his order. It seems one could argue this Obama appointee father of an activist daughter funded by government to support illegals is himself guilty of sketchy conduct no? And given SCOTUS has said he shouldn’t have even heard the case – it should have gone to Texas, the sketchiness is only compounded!
Officially the Trump administration continued to assemble 3 planeloads, two of which took off during the afternoon hearing, but it’s unclear when a written order was given to the administration, or whether Boasberg is relying on failure to adhere to his verbal order, something likely unknown by those directly involved in the removal of illegals.
Its a LOT worse than that.
Julie Kelly posted on X something she found in the court transcript, that Boasberg himself said in court.
He was apologizing for not being properly attired, and said he’d received a call and rushed to the courthouse and then had the case assigned to himself. (some such, I’m paraphrasing very loosely).
Turns out, this was on a Saturday, and Boasberg wasn’t the judge on duty to catch “emergency” cases that came before the court.
So, how is it he had the case transferred from the judge that was on duty to himself?
Boasberg got FOUR unrelated high profile Trump cases assigned to himself within a couple of weeks. There’s something like 670 district court judges in the country.
Note that Boasberg is the same guy that was chief judge of the FISA Court that approved the warrants on Carter Page, and all of his associates, and all of their associates (two degrees of separation) that allowed the federal government to spy on absolutely everyone involved in the Trump campaign for POTUS in 2015, and then renewed those warrants repeatedly for the next four years.
Given how extremely biased (and, frankly, utterly corrupt) so many D appointed federal district court judges are – all you have to do to completely rig a case is to rig who the judge is that presides over it.
Name the judge, note the issue that the case is about, and everyone in the country already knows how the judge will rule before a word is said in court.
US Senator Eric Schmitt tonight on FOX NEWS:
“Judge Boasberg over the weekend it came out – he’s not the emergency judge in DC. He inserted himself in that role. He was on vacation. The case was filed at 2:30 in the morning. Somehow he ended up with that case. He wasn’t the emergency judge on duty so I think this requires further investigation and legislation,” Schmitt said.
Schmitt continued, “He is the chief judge and he inserted himself. That doesn’t happen. The emergency judges 100% of the time get those cases. So he could have been tipped off that this was going to be filed and while on vacation he took the case.”
Note that the transcript from the case itself records Boasberg stating that he got a call and rushed to the courthouse. What Schmitt is saying here answers my question above on how Boasberg assigned himself the case: He’s the Chief Judge, so he just did it. Yet, as the Senator points out: “this never happens”.
Schmitt went on to say he’s going to introduce legislation to “ensure random assignment” of cases. Good luck with that, lol. Seems these case assignments are completely rigged at both the District and Appellate level and have been since forever. And, there’s zero D’s in either House or Senate that would vote in favor of any such legislation, and multiple RINO”s in both chambers willing to vote with the D’s.
I don’t think there’s as much opposition to the idea of anti venue and anti Judge shopping legislation as you claim. It cuts both ways,.admittedly the d/prog.do more of it but center/right outfits could use it. IMO it would be an easy win for most in Congress to be able to go back home and tell their constituents ‘we took action to rein in the out of control lawfare’.
Interestingly, this allows a bit of “judge shopping” by the administration.
The venue with jurisdiction is where the plaintiff is being held – not where he was arrested, not where he lived.
So, ICE can make arrests nationwide and immediately transport to a detention center wherever they like. Any lawsuits then have to be in the District where that detention center is located.
Reading the SCOTUS opinion though: that section about providing notice to the illegal. Does that mean they have to notify them in advance of an arrest? Hope not. They’d just move to another State and pick a new fake name.
“So, ICE can make arrests nationwide and immediately transport to a detention center wherever they like.”
So which District Court covers Gitmo?
Sadly, they aren’t using GITMO. Had to move the illegal aliens they’d sent there elsewhere.
Something about it not being up to spec for Federal Bureau of Prisons.
No air conditioning.
What a farce!!
Justice Roberts and the concurring Justices clearly stated that the district where the person/persons are held is the proper venue. That’s why DHS and Tom Holman designated specific areas of Louisiana and Texas for detention facilities. District Court Judges with a strong Constitutional and Conservative outlook on the law.
Next will be Rep Briggs bringing forth the “good conduct” clause against Judge Bosaberg in the House. This doesn’t require impeachment. The House simply removes him. This Judge has shown that he does follow the “good conduct” clause. Quite frankly he lied in court that he was randomly assigned these cases. He manipulated the system to be the assigned these cases. Make an example of a few of the worst Judges in the DC circuit and the rest will fall in line.
“But can a Judge who never should have had the case in the first place and whose order (turn the planes around) was grossly improper hold someone in contempt for not complying with the order?”
Quite obviously, yes. Boasberg is addicted to the limelight, the cheers of the media, the fawning admiration of the Left. The millisecond that changes, the Left turns on their heroes like rabid badgers.
Boasberg is addicted to the limelight, the cheers of the media, the fawning admiration of the Left.
_____________________________________________________________
he’ll likely get his robes wet now that he’s been remanded to the kiddy pool
Do the conservative Justices draw straws to see who is going to join with the liberal Justices?
At a minimum, the detainee will get to argue that he is not a member of the gang and the government likely will have to prove (not sure by what standard) that the person is a TdA member.
In reality, though, they won’t have to show that. If they’re in court anyway, wouldn’t they just have to show they were an illegal alien? That’s enough to deport anyone. “Oh, hey, as long as we’re here, your honor, these folks are here illegally. And, since we’re calling this due process, out they go.”
lefty has always been on the side of the criminals..known evil criminals get even more of their sympathy
since lefty eschews peace then we know its all about wanting the criminals to thrive keeping civility in chaos so that they may continue their control over people to get them to submit to their mental illness(es)
Maybe I’m wrong but it seems as if SCOTUS continually refuses to rule on the actual issue. It seems to always be about “Standing”.
Back in 2020 no one could present voter fraud evidence because they didn’t have standing. Now the judge in DC cannot issue a TRO because he didn’t have standing.
I’m awaiting another Bush/Obama/Biden left-wing judge in Texas to issue the next TRO.
Then here we go again. Nothing changes.
Orange Harvey got his jowls slapped . He can just deport people becuase of their last name now.
Nah, for now just deporting the Aliens (all classes of which are persons with revocable permission to be in USA OR unlawfully present) who are dangerous, criminal or terrorists and the Aliens arrested due to discovery with them. We got a long way to go before simply rounding up folks off the street for zero reasons.
American citizens enjoy a presumption of innocence, illegal migrants do not. The notion that due process is owed to someone who has no right to be here in the first place is simply an excuse for trampling on the rights of those who are here legally. Citizens have the right to be secure from foreign invaders. And the argument that it is better to permit evil to flourish than punish one innocent unjustly is a form of moral idiocy that pops up regularly in such situations, and will never prevail as long as the sane are in the majority.