- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on using AEA to deport Venezuelans.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:22 am to Cobbvol
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:22 am to Cobbvol
quote:
Like not instructing the plaintiffs to file in Texas
Well the admin made filing anywhere impossible, which is why the USSC made it clear in their ruling that there is a notice requirement permitting the opportunity of a proper filing of habeas, so that won't happen again.
The most important part of the ruling was the USSC refuting X "legal scholars" and ruling that AEA IS subject to review by the courts.
I'll re-post
quote:
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. 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.”
THAT was my argument on this issue and the USSC agreed with me.
2
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:what does it say about Boasberg turning it into a class action?
THAT was my argument on this issue and the USSC agreed with me.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:29 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
what does it say about Boasberg turning it into a class action?
I believe they ruled that was improper, which I don't care about as I never argued that point.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:32 am to SlowFlowPro
This was another fail for you and Boasberg 
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:33 am to SDVTiger
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:well damn I guess all those silly posters calling boasberg a wanna be dictator in black robes were correct? Crazy.
I believe they ruled that was improper,
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:37 am to SlowFlowPro
You tried to argue they had rights
We told you the AEA would work. You failed
We told you the AEA would work. You failed
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:42 am to SDVTiger
quote:
You tried to argue they had rights
The Supreme Court affirmed that yesterday. From the opinion
quote:
“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings.
quote:
We told you the AEA would work.
I only argued about judicial review.
quote:
I don't see any legitimate argument that it's beyond judicial review to ensure that the conditions required of the statute exist, and the case they keep citing did this exact analysis. What they are referencing is the use of executive power AFTER this determination has been made, but that isn't necessarily the current debate/discussion.
LINK
Note: The Supreme Court cited "the exact analysis" I referenced in that post to confirm I was right.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Supreme Court affirmed that yesterday
Yeah thats why they are staying in El Salvador
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:46 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Yeah thats why they are staying in El Salvador
What do these words mean?
quote:
“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. 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.”
Thankfully, that judicial review and deportation procedures occurred in Texas.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 8:25 am to udtiger
quote:
Yes, and no.
It does tell Boasberg to get fricked because it vacated his TROs and concluded he didn't have jurisdiction.
AEA can only be challenged through a habeas petition, and that can only be brought in the district where they are held (which ain't DC).
The order does require notice to the person getting the AEA bounce so they can file a habeas petition. It also noted there is limited judicial review of AEA as to whether the interpretation and application are constitutional.
So, it's a solid double, but it's not a home run.
The government's position from the start has been that persons subject to AEA action are entitled to habeas review. I don't think SCOTUS affirming that somehow reduces this from a home run to a double.
What COULD be trouble for the government is the following: SCOTUS, in its order wrote
quote:
For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.”
It is clearly discussing "jurisdiction" as being proper only in the place the person is confined. But next sentence it writes
quote:
The detain
ees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.
The switch from "jurisdiction" to "venue" could matter when it comes to the potential of Boasberg finding government actors in contempt of his order.
Possibly reading too much into this, but Boasberg did seem hell-bent on getting a contempt out of this on the part of the government. This leaves a larger opening than if the language was jurisdiction as opposed to venue. Could be something to keep an eye today.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 8:27 am to JimEverett
CA posted some X posts about that jurisdiction/venue dichotomy in here thread, FWIW. You're probably not off base.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 8:28 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Yeah thats why they are staying in El Salvador
SFP simping for illegal criminals, who knew.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 8:34 am to ArHog
quote:
SFP simping for illegal criminals,
I'm discussing legal discussions only.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 8:35 am to JimEverett
quote:Boasberg might have screwed them by making it a class action. I think habeas class actions aren't allowed or allowed only in very narrow circumstances. He fricked them over trying to set an impeachment trap. TDS screws TdA. You hate to see it
The government's position from the start has been that persons subject to AEA action are entitled to habeas review. I don't think SCOTUS affirming that somehow reduces this from a home run to a double
Posted on 4/8/25 at 8:36 am to SlowFlowPro
Your party is having a bad week.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 8:36 am to hogcard1964
quote:
Your party
Posted on 4/8/25 at 8:39 am to SDVTiger
The deportees do, in fact, have rights under the decision.
This whole argument has become
silly. Trump wants to snap his finger,
sign an order and get what he wants without troublesome complications, like the law. Well, it’s not that simple, even with a SCOTUS that has been in the bag up until now.
This whole argument has become
silly. Trump wants to snap his finger,
sign an order and get what he wants without troublesome complications, like the law. Well, it’s not that simple, even with a SCOTUS that has been in the bag up until now.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 8:43 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Boasberg might have screwed them by making it a class action. I think habeas class actions aren't allowed or allowed only in very narrow circumstances. He fricked them over trying to set an impeachment trap. TDS screws TdA. You hate to see it
The fact that he certified a class on the spot, with opposing counsel not present and presumably unaware ue to notification, and without briefing seems batshit insane to me.
But maybe that happens. I would be interested in knowing if that is even close to being "good practice" by a federal judge.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News