Homelander Posted April 14 Posted April 14 1 minute ago, Roundybout said: Still haven’t addressed the 9-0 SCOTUS ruling. Been all day. Biden should have proceeded with student loan forgiveness and watched Fox News explode. It's beyond obvious this regime is not planning to leave. Ever. 1
JDHillFan Posted April 14 Posted April 14 11 minutes ago, Roundybout said: I don’t see any pasty white aryan types being sent to the torture chambers. If I am wrong, please provide me a source. So you made it up? It’s not in the contract? I didn’t want to believe it but it is what it is. I’m never believing you again! 1
Roundybout Posted April 15 Posted April 15 3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: Was Rachel Morgan deported and did Biden refuse to return her, defying a unanimous 9-0 SCOTUS ruling? No? Then shut up! 2 hours ago, JDHillFan said: So you made it up? It’s not in the contract? I didn’t want to believe it but it is what it is. I’m never believing you again! What on earth are you talking about? 1
JDHillFan Posted April 15 Posted April 15 9 hours ago, Roundybout said: This doesn’t make any sense since we have a contract with El Salvador to send enemies of the state/minorities there. 22 minutes ago, Roundybout said: What on earth are you talking about? You said there was a contract - see your post above. I asked if you could point me to said contract because it sounded like bullsh*t. You can’t, and it is. That’s what I’m talking about. To summarize - it’s just your brand of dumbassery at play.
stevestojan Posted April 15 Posted April 15 (edited) 4 hours ago, B-Man said: President Trump, Marco Rubio, Stephen Miller and other members of this administration have spent a good portion of the day dunking on an activist media that's been pushing the Democrats' preferred narrative about the illegal alien who was deported to El Salvador. The media can't grasp it because they don't want to. Another example of that came courtesy of Politico: Actually, Politico, he's an "El Salvador man" but don't stop trying to push that narrative! .https://twitchy.com/dougp/2025/04/14/politicos-getting-ratioed-over-spin-on-wrongly-deported-maryland-man-n2411380 I see your point B-Man, but does any part of you cringe at the fact that the white house is ignoring the (unanimous) ruling of the Supreme Court to facilitate his return, claiming that federal courts don’t have jurisdiction in these types of matters? Slippery slope, no? (I won’t even get into Trump hinting at departing American citizens to the same El Salvadoran prison…) Edited April 15 by stevestojan 1
B-Man Posted April 15 Posted April 15 15 minutes ago, stevestojan said: I see your point B-Man, but does any part of you cringe at the fact that the white house is ignoring the (unanimous) ruling of the Supreme Court to facilitate his return, claiming that federal courts don’t have jurisdiction in these types of matters? Slippery slope, no? Sorry but I do not believe that it is as cut and dried as the media/left is reporting their decision. (Not really 'reporting' but spinning from the mountaintops) Sadly, I am aware the 99% of the folks here will not to his 3 1/2 minute explanation (but will still respond). . 2
stevestojan Posted April 15 Posted April 15 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Sorry but I do not believe that it is as cut and dried as the media/left is reporting their decision. (Not really 'reporting' but spinning from the mountaintops) Sadly, I am aware the 99% of the folks here will not to his 3 1/2 minute explanation (but will still respond). . Super helpful, particularly the second tweet. Thank you. I guess it’s my bleeding heart liberal side that thinks “while we can’t tell them who to send back, we DID send him out, and in error. So that man, while here illegally, doesn’t have a criminal record and is now in one of the world’s most notoriously brutal prisons.” But. By letter of the law, I suppose I can see the reason it wasn’t just Trump ignoring SCOTUS. It is a major ***** up by deporting him in the first place in this swath destined for that particular prison. Like this second, that man is living a virtual nightmare. I don’t think that punishment fits the crime of being an illegal alien. 1
Homelander Posted April 15 Posted April 15 10 minutes ago, B-Man said: Sorry but I do not believe that it is as cut and dried as the media/left is reporting their decision. And then you proceed to share garbage from who, exactly? Just post the actual brief - if you’re so confident, let the facts speak for themselves. 24A949 Noem v. Abrego Garcia (04/10/2025) Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 24A949 _________________ KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND [April 10, 2025] On March 15, 2025, the United States removed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Sal vador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Ter rorism Confinement (CECOT). The United States acknowl edges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal. The United States represents that the removal to El Salvador was the result of an “administrative error.” The United States al leges, however, that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public. Abrego Garcia responds that he is not a member of MS–13, and that he has lived safely in the United States with his family for a decade and has never been charged with a crime. On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Gov ernment to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7.” On the morning of April 7, the United States filed this application to vacate the District Court’s order. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay 2 NOEM v. ABREGO GARCIA Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J. and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the adminis trative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline im posed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can con cerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated. Statement of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, respecting the Court’s disposition of the application. The United States Government arrested Kilmar Ar mando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a “ter rorism confinement center” in El Salvador, where he has been detained for 26 days and counting. To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his con finement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Gov ernment remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J. 3 Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future per secution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] au thorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.” App. to Application To Vacate Injunction 13a. The Government has not challenged the validity of that order. Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an “oversight.” Decl. of R. Cerna in No. 25–cv–951 (D Md., Mar. 31, 2025), ECF Doc. 11–3, p. 3. The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argu ment the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Pa dilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008). The Government’s argu ment, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcer ate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal con sequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8). That view re futes itself. Because every factor governing requests for equitable re lief manifestly weighs against the Government, Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 426 (2009), I would have declined to intervene in this litigation and denied the application in full. Nevertheless, I agree with the Court’s order that the proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the pro cess to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Gov ernment must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with “due process of law,” including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). It must also comply with 4 NOEM v. ABREGO GARCIA Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J. its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. See Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Federal law governing detention and removal of immigrants continues, of course, to be binding as well. See 8 U. S. C. §1226(a) (re quiring a warrant before a noncitizen “may be arrested and detained pending a decision” on removal); 8 CFR §287.8(c)(2)(ii) (2024) (requiring same); see also 8 CFR §241.4(l) (in order to revoke conditional release, the Gov ernment must provide adequate notice and “promptly” ar range an “initial informal interview . . . to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation stated in the notification”). Moreover, it has been the Gov ernment’s own well-established policy to “facilitate [an] al ien’s return to the United States if . . . the alien’s presence is necessary for continued administrative removal proceed ings” in cases where a noncitizen has been removed pending immigration proceedings. See U. S. Immigration and Cus toms Enforcement, Directive 11061.1, Facilitating the Re turn to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Al iens, §2 (Feb. 24, 2012). In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obli gations to follow the law.
Taro T Posted April 15 Posted April 15 12 hours ago, B-Man said: Sorry but I do not believe that it is as cut and dried as the media/left is reporting their decision. (Not really 'reporting' but spinning from the mountaintops) Sadly, I am aware the 99% of the folks here will not to his 3 1/2 minute explanation (but will still respond). . And from that, should he get his immigration hearing, via Zoom or Teams or whatever, even while still being in El Salvador; it SEEMS that would be a remedy per the SCOTUS ruling. Not certain of that because the SCOTUS said the District Court Judge needs to explain what was meant by "effectuate." The SCOTUS has said THAT might be the District Court taking the judicial branch into the executive branch's territory. Also, not sure whether the US can even "facilitiate" his removal from the El Salvadoran prision as he is an El Salvadoran citizen in the country where he is a citizen. Margot Cleveland has a very informative series of posts on this issue. It is very possible that we've stumbled upon an area of law that is far from black and white and even if he was sent to El Salvador improperly that there may not be a lawful remedy to get him out of there (or out of that prison should he be there actually by mistake as several have claimed). If he really shouldn't be there AND if there isn't a legal remedy to fix that; the law needs to be fixed. 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 15 Posted April 15 I am truly confused by what is happening with these judges, they don't seem to have an issue with Biden allowing people into the country with no checks( presidential EO only) but we can't remove them by the same method. It is almost as if the rule is law only applies in matters that benefit the Dems . 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 15 Posted April 15 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I am truly confused by what is happening with these judges, they don't seem to have an issue with Biden allowing people into the country with no checks( presidential EO only) but we can't remove them by the same method. It is almost as if the rule is law only applies in matters that benefit the Dems . I get the confusion, because media reports - largely stemming from interest group/White House spin - have been so poor. We need to separate this guy, Abrego-Garcia, from all the other cases. There is a critical distinction in his case: Trump's Department of Justice, acting through the appointed officials, decided that Abrego-Garcia cannot be deported to El Salvador because he would likely face persecution there. That order remains intact. I'm not sure if Trump's DHS sought further review of that decision, but at any rate, that was a final order of his Attorney General at the time. That's why the new Trump Administration has admitted that he was removed to El Salvador by administrative error. It's not like he has a right to be free from custody in the USA. If he was released from custody (under Trump or Biden or both), well, that was likely a discretionary decision. And the new Trump Administration can go back to the court to ask them to "reopen" and change that decision based on major changes in El Salvador in the last few years, arguing that he no longer has any reason to fear being there. We can also ship him off to any other country that will take him, just not El Salvador unless/until that final order is overturned. But ignoring the court orders and throwing up your hands and saying "sorry, nothing we can do" is shameful. He is in prison in El Salvador based on a program in which the U.S. pays El Salvador to house people deported from the United States. We need to make our best efforts to "facilitate" his return, not pretend that we are suddenly powerless to do anything. Edited April 15 by The Frankish Reich
Roundybout Posted April 15 Posted April 15 12 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I am truly confused by what is happening with these judges, they don't seem to have an issue with Biden allowing people into the country with no checks( presidential EO only) but we can't remove them by the same method. It is almost as if the rule is law only applies in matters that benefit the Dems . Too bad, so sad. Follow SCOTUS.
Taro T Posted April 15 Posted April 15 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Taro T said: And from that, should he get his immigration hearing, via Zoom or Teams or whatever, even while still being in El Salvador; it SEEMS that would be a remedy per the SCOTUS ruling. Not certain of that because the SCOTUS said the District Court Judge needs to explain what was meant by "effectuate." The SCOTUS has said THAT might be the District Court taking the judicial branch into the executive branch's territory. Also, not sure whether the US can even "facilitiate" his removal from the El Salvadoran prision as he is an El Salvadoran citizen in the country where he is a citizen. Margot Cleveland has a very informative series of posts on this issue. It is very possible that we've stumbled upon an area of law that is far from black and white and even if he was sent to El Salvador improperly that there may not be a lawful remedy to get him out of there (or out of that prison should he be there actually by mistake as several have claimed). If he really shouldn't be there AND if there isn't a legal remedy to fix that; the law needs to be fixed. And further to this, what exactly does the term "facilitate" mean? In most of the non-potato head speaking parts of the world, to facilitate usually means to enable something to happen but not to necessarily actually make it happen. (And thus, the reason the judge wanted the US to facilitate AND effectuate his release back into the US.) As this guy is an El Salvadoran citizen in El Salvador; facilitation could be as simple as telling their President that we can have a plane waiting to take him back to the US but it still is up to the El Salvadorans as to whether they release him for travel back to the US or not. Edited April 15 by Taro T 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 15 Posted April 15 18 minutes ago, Taro T said: And further to this, what exactly does the term "facilitate" mean? It is actually a term of art in immigration law. I have never seen any confusion over this previously, which is why this is fake confusion. 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: Again, who said he'll be at liberty in the USA, living "like a citizen?" I'm sure that's what his attorneys want, but he has no such right. Instead of trolling the courts and trying to confuse the American people, Trump should simply call his bluffs: we will bring him back, hold him in custody, and move to reopen his immigration case while also trying to find a third country willing to accept him. He really has no leg to stand on if these things happen. But this administration is all about posturing.
Taro T Posted April 15 Posted April 15 16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: It is actually a term of art in immigration law. I have never seen any confusion over this previously, which is why this is fake confusion. Again, who said he'll be at liberty in the USA, living "like a citizen?" I'm sure that's what his attorneys want, but he has no such right. Instead of trolling the courts and trying to confuse the American people, Trump should simply call his bluffs: we will bring him back, hold him in custody, and move to reopen his immigration case while also trying to find a third country willing to accept him. He really has no leg to stand on if these things happen. But this administration is all about posturing. Well, according to dictionary.findlaw.com it means "to make easier" or "to help bring about." (Which is essesntially what had been said in the previous post.) So, what part of "making easier" his coming back to the US is synonymous with "actually bringing him back to the US?" Isn't that kind of what the term "effectuate" means in this instance, and kind of the cause of this whole kerfuffle as the SCOTUS has asked the district judge what was meant by THAT term?
The Frankish Reich Posted April 15 Posted April 15 1 minute ago, Taro T said: Well, according to dictionary.findlaw.com it means "to make easier" or "to help bring about." (Which is essesntially what had been said in the previous post.) So, what part of "making easier" his coming back to the US is synonymous with "actually bringing him back to the US?" Isn't that kind of what the term "effectuate" means in this instance, and kind of the cause of this whole kerfuffle as the SCOTUS has asked the district judge what was meant by THAT term? I'm telling you that it is a term of art in immigration law that is not necessarily limited to the dictionary definition.
Recommended Posts