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

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.

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.

It'll take years just to remove one. Looks like we're stuck with them. House them in the concurring judges neighborhoods.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.