Supreme Court Rules Against Government on Deportation
- Thread starter martin
- Start date
Wow.. Again you get the ruling wrong. The USSC said the lower court was to clarify their ruling about how to facilitate the return and the government had to tell the court what steps it is taking to return Garcia.
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 order requires the government to tell the court the steps it is actually taking to get him back. The court is free to hold the government in contempt for not trying.
the
Government should be prepared to share what it can con-
cerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further
steps.
Similarly, neither could the Court order the administration to find the meaning of life.
That would be in direct violation of the USSC ruling.
)
Right, the most the Court can require is a good faith effort.
I bet they forgive his student loan too.
The concurring opinion lays out the law and gives the lower court some great guidelines for how to require the government to meet its obligations.
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
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”).
volsrocks
Verified User
Yup....A friendly chat between the US ambassador and the relevant El Salvador authority might go, “We’re officially asking for this and you can say NO
A typically bad faith effort, in other words.
volsrocks
Verified User
Last edited:
Indeed…but if he does return, since Pobre wants him returned, send him to his house.
BartenderElite
Verified User
He doesn't need to stay at anyone's house. He has a family.
He has not been convicted of any crimes.
volsrocks
Verified User
So what if El Salvador says no
BartenderElite
Verified User
They probably won't. They don't have a stake in this. If they do, it would be a shame - SCOTUS has ruled, and the gov't admitted their mistake on this one.
Most Americans support deporting criminals. I do, too. This was a mistake that should be fixed. Americans also believe in fairness & justice.
volsrocks
Verified User
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Cheaper and safer than tossing them in prisons here!
Excluding Trump's moral scum Americans.
