Started By
Message

re: A few interesting details on the SCOTUS rule from yesterday in scotusblog.

Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:30 am to
Posted by themunch
bottom of the list
Member since Jan 2007
70691 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:30 am to
The government shite all over immigration law for four years. Now Trump has to have the correct approach.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:33 am to
quote:

he Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

The 4A isn't really applicable to this discussion, just like the 14A isn't.

this is a 5A issue.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:33 am to
quote:

This is a weird way to tell everyone you want this country destroyed by illegal immigration.

This is an expected way to tell everyone you don't understand what's actually being discussed and have to rely on emotional projection instead.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
133230 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:33 am to
quote:

Only in 3 specific instances. Not just "because"


Is the judiciary the final arbiter in this matter ?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:35 am to
quote:

Does anyone know if the government is arguing that removal under AEA is NOT subject to any judicial review? In other words, the President declares that you are subject to removal under the AEA...and that's that...no legal challenges are allowed?


That has been, effectively, their argument.

They're arguing this is exclusive executive constitutional functioning and is non-justiciable by courts.

They're doubling down by arguing the evidence used to justify this claim is hidden behind national security, which they also argue is executive constitutional functioning and they can't be forced to reveal this evidence to anyone.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:35 am to
quote:

The government shite all over immigration law for four years. Now Trump has to have the correct approach.

All that you're saying is Biden and Trump are taking different approaches to immigration pursuant to their executive discretion.

And I say "no shite" in response.
Posted by Adajax
Member since Nov 2015
7473 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:37 am to
It'll take years just to remove one. Looks like we're stuck with them. House them in the concurring judges neighborhoods.
Posted by IvoryBillMatt
Member since Mar 2020
5067 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:39 am to
quote:

That has been, effectively, their argument.


Thanks. In the Texas case, though, the government provided some (very brief) notice to claimed TDA members that they were subject to removal. Isn't that a concession that SOME judicial review is available? Why else give the notice?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:40 am to
quote:

Is the judiciary the final arbiter in this matter ?


THAT is ultimately going to be the decision.

This is from the ruling in April (not the most recent one)

quote:

Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163-164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) 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.


Ultimately the court is going to have to decide the extent of the "questions of interpretation and constitutionality" in this use of the AEA. One of 2 outcomes is likely (this follows my post above).

1. The court rules they to not have the authority to review this sort of executive decision-making.

2. The court rules that the basic "questions of interpretation and constitutionality" permit review of the facts relied upon in the invocation by the government.

This is going to lead to various forms of review. If you want to see one where the court gives deference to the proclamation but still interprets the text of the law and applies it to the facts of the situation, read the case from Texas from a week or 2 ago.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:40 am to
quote:

In the Texas case, though, the government provided some (very brief) notice to claimed TDA members that they were subject to removal. Isn't that a concession that SOME judicial review is available? Why else give the notice?

Well the notice is part of the 5A. I was more speaking about the executive determination and the extent of review for that, not the process of removal.
Posted by GRTiger
On a roof eating alligator pie
Member since Dec 2008
65975 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:42 am to
quote:

Correct. The Trump admin should have focused on using those instead of aggressive uses of wartime statutes in a novel way.



The effort was absolutely worth it considering how much worse it will be comparatively. 100% the right fight.
Posted by Knight of Old
New Hampshire
Member since Jul 2007
11903 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:48 am to
One just knew SlowFlowProcess would get stimulated by an arcane argument rather than take a real position…
Posted by Lg
Hayden, Alabama
Member since Jul 2011
7863 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:50 am to
quote:

No he just rejects the reality of legal systems and the processes needed for a system of laws to work.


Apparently the system is broken beyond repair when the very first act is breaking the law upon illegal ENTRY and the criminal is afforded due process. Especially when the previous administration was flying plane loads all over the country without vetting them first.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:51 am to
quote:

One just knew SlowFlowProcess would get stimulated by an arcane argument rather than take a real position…

My position has been clear and stated for at least 2 years

The admin should have invested in expanding the immigration court system, hiring new judges, making new courts, etc. to hear more cases. We'd be a lot farther along deporting illegals had Trump followed my plan than the silliness Stephen Miller told him to try.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:53 am to
quote:

Apparently the system is broken beyond repair when the very first act is breaking the law upon illegal ENTRY and the criminal is afforded due process.

silly argument

I don't think there has ever been a time in our modern immigration system (which is a little over 100 years) where some form of due process wasn't guaranteed to illegals.
Posted by Lg
Hayden, Alabama
Member since Jul 2011
7863 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:59 am to
quote:

silly argument


So in the last 100 years can you tell me which administration let 20 million illegals cross the border without coming through a port of entry being and being processed first? Process in/process out.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:02 am to
quote:

So in the last 100 years can you tell me which administration let 20 million illegals cross the border without coming through a port of entry being and being processed first?


Now you're trying to change your argument and pivot to something unrelated to what we were discussing

The Biden administration making a political choice to do something within their executive authority that has nothing to do with discussing the constitutional issues at play and proper and relevant arguments within that discussion.

The Biden administration made a political choice with their executive authority and they paid for it politically with the Democrats losing the 2024 election bigly
This post was edited on 5/17/25 at 10:02 am
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
58475 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:02 am to
quote:

This is an expected way to tell everyone you don't understand what's actually being discussed and have to rely on emotional projection instead.


No, I nailed what you're advocating for perfectly.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451784 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:03 am to
quote:

No, I nailed what you're advocating for perfectly.

Not at all.

The Trump admin still has to follow the law.
Posted by Lg
Hayden, Alabama
Member since Jul 2011
7863 posts
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:08 am to
quote:

The Biden administration made a political choice with their executive authority and they paid for it politically with the Democrats losing the 2024 election bigly


So what you’re saying is an administration can break the law by EO and make an irreparable situation for the next administration? That’s really not a system of laws at work you so stringently defend.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram