The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.
> Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). 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. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)).
> 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.
> The dissent’s point is disingenuous
Might you be confusing the government's position with the majority's opinion? The sentence quoted above from the dissent is saying that the government's position has {bad implication}, not that the majority's opinion has {bad implication}.
Potential life sentences, in other words. For people who are largely not criminals.
Supreme Court Hides Behind Ridiculous Procedural Argument To Allow Human Trafficking To Continue [1]
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/08/supreme-court-hides-behi...
Venezuelans in the United States labeled by President Donald Trump as “alien enemies” must be given a chance to challenge their deportations before being expelled from the country, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.
Courts in Texas may not be especially receptive to such petitions. Any appeals will be heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s most conservative federal appeals court.
Still, the Supreme Court’s ruling appears to deal a setback to Trump’s attempt to swiftly deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, under powers used only three prior times in U.S. history, most recently in World War II.
Nevertheless, Trump declared victory Monday.
~ https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/supreme-court-depor...
To allow the govt to claim that we are at war based on assertions of 'invasion' by illegal aliens is extremely dangerous.
The idea of the govt being able to invoke wartime powers when we are clearly not at war should be something that troubles people regardless of political affiliation. Wartime powers are by definition extraordinary and are designed to give the president vast powers necessary to deal with an existential threat to the nation. There is no feasible way to cut those back without seriously hamstringing us in case of an actual war on our borders.
However the implicit contract is that governments use those powers only in cases of actual war and existential threats. By allowing the govt to move ahead in this case, we have significantly expanded the supremacy of the executive over the other branches.
Many democracies have not been able to come back from this(at least not very easily). By nature, politicians(regardless of party) will never willingly relinquish power. It's a given that the next president whether Democrat or Republican will keep this power and potentially use it against political enemies.
I genuinely do not know where we go from here.
The dissent is pointing out that the administration is deliberately moving these people to districts where they are likely to get favorable rulings quickly, and they have demonstrated willingness to perform these actions in spite of contrary rulings from other courts, rather than respecting the ruling and arguing about jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...
is this that different?
Why they won't just bring him back is disturbing. He has a wife and 3 children who are all US citizens. Nobody should be defending this.
Most of that is false, and you should look at what media you've confused that has given you that false impression. In 2019, an immigration judge determined that Garcia was deportable because of his ties to MS-13 and issued a deportation order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/2025.... The relevant orders of the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals are at appendix pages 1a-18a. The most relevant portion is 4a through 5a, where the Board of Immigration appeals affirms the immigration judge's determination that Garcia "is a verified member of MS-13."
> I'm also aware the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.
Incorrect. It is undisputed that, in 2019, the immigration judge issued a removal order. The only caveat was that Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador, his home country. From appendix page 46a (Garcia's brief in the current district court proceedings):
> Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia ("Mr. Abrego Garcia") won an order from an immigration judge ("IJ") prohibiting his removal to El Salvador, after he established it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted in that country on account of a statutorily protected ground. The government could have chosen to appeal that order, but did not. The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth, but did not.
“The United States government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” wrote Judge Stephanie D. Thacker, who was appointed by Mr. Obama. “The government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”
The immigration judge’s decision that he was deportable for being associated with MS13 isn’t up for debate at this point. But it’s highly relevant to show the deportation was proper.
Note: it looks like you’re quoting from news articles describing the judicial decisions, instead of reading the decisions themselves. That’s like quoting from news articles about software code. They’re not reliable sources.
What is false specifically? The fact that an immigration judge determined Garcia was deportable does not contradict the fact that the same order was withheld later on, much as you try to imply it.
>> the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.
> Incorrect.
Actually you are incorrect, quoting from [0]: "the Government conceded during the district court hearing, “The facts -- we concede the facts. This person should -- the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.”"
[0] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25881148/ca4-ag.pdf
Garcia was deportable. He was only not deportable to El Salvador.
> “Withheld” has a specific meaning in this context
okay, but the person you replied to didn't say "Garcia could not be deported to Switzerland, because the judge withheld the order." He just said the judge withheld the order, which is correct. And then you responded and said it was wrong.
Actually, no one is talking about the legal basis for deporting Garcia to Switzerland or Djibouti, except you, because he wasn't deported to Switzerland or Djibouti but to El Salvador.
Without opining on whether he should be brought back: it seems kind of a slippery slope (legally speaking) to suggest that someone should be brought back because of their family, no? I'm not sure I'd want courts to decide that people should also be subject to deportation or other punishments because of their families.
The law doesn’t require being charged with or convicted of a crime for deportation. Garcia is deportable simply for being an illegal alien. The connection to MS13 is simply about prioritizing who gets deported first. Thus it makes sense that it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.
> That he has a family of citizens should keep him in the country. It's cruelty to split up families with deportation.
That’s not the law, and would create a tremendous moral hazard if it were the law. It’s cruel to Americans to import Latin America’s gang problems. We got the Italian mafia along with mass Italian immigration, and it took decades to clean it up. The Italian mob was doing hits in nice midtown manhattan restaurants until the 1980s until we developed RICO theories to put everyone in prison.
Is it correct that you are in favour of courts being involved in deportation decisions and those decisions being respected and paid heed to?
False. Garcia was concededly subject to deportation except to El Salvador. And that condition prohibiting removal to El Salvador was not issued by a "court," but rather by an immigration judge (executive branch employee).