***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

190,813 Views | 2243 Replies | Last: 34 min ago by Ag with kids
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:13p, 4/10/25
I am currently busy and can't read the ruling, but does this mean judges can order people back they think didn't get deported correctly?

All he will be afforded is habeas hearing I believe. But it is still kinda outrageous that we are bringing a terrorist back to the US, only because they sent him to El Salvador. Just move him to another country.

Reply Quote
2 edits
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 7:18p, 4/10/25
He can be sent to any other country. It's a stupid order requiring the government to 'try' to get him out of El Salvador, basically. That's it. They can send him to Venezuela or any other place. If El Salvador cooperates, which they don't have to, because they're not subject to SCOTUS jurisdiction any more than Beijing is. My take is that it's pretty much just a unique paperwork screw up and SCOTUS doesn't want to permit the precedent of ignoring an order that he couldn't be sent to his home country/where he is a citizen.

Oh, and he's a POS, for what it's worth, already litigated/decided he could be extradited for his gang membership etc, just not to El Salvador. Making him a hero/martyr for the left is hilarious.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:29p, 4/10/25
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 9:08p, 4/10/25
nortex97 said:
Again this is solid for those scoring at home, as I think I have said habeas isn't in any way a big win for the globalist leftists. It's a speed bump at best for Homan/Rubio etc. Especially since they can't venue shop for an Obama-Biden judge every time.
USP Beaumont is a high security federal pen in the Eastern District of Texas, and holds 1,150 inmates. FCI Beaumont is medium security, and holds about the same. That's about 2,500 potential inmates that would have an almost zero chance with a Habeas claim unless the Feds really did make a major mistake.



It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:10p, 4/10/25

Reply Quote
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 9:18p, 4/10/25
nortex97 said:
He can be sent to any other country. It's a stupid order requiring the government to 'try' to get him out of El Salvador, basically. That's it. They can send him to Venezuela or any other place. If El Salvador cooperates, which they don't have to, because they're not subject to SCOTUS jurisdiction any more than Beijing is. My take is that it's pretty much just a unique paperwork screw up and SCOTUS doesn't want to permit the precedent of ignoring an order that he couldn't be sent to his home country/where he is a citizen.

Oh, and he's a POS, for what it's worth, already litigated/decided he could be extradited for his gang membership etc, just not to El Salvador. Making him a hero/martyr for the left is hilarious.
Israel will take him.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:52p, 4/10/25
Reply Quote
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 10:22p, 4/10/25
will25u said:



There's so many idiots on X saying the Supreme Courts' ruling in the Abrego-Garcia case as a loss for the administration. Did they even read the ruling? Geez the core argument from DOJ was that the district court could not order them to "effectuate" the return of Abrego-Garcia, because that would intrude on core Article II powers. The Supreme Court overwhelmingly agreed on that point. Idiots are fist bumping over nothing. I'm more surprised by a 9-0 ruling on anything




Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:33a, 4/11/25
Wow... Really quick schedule.

Judge sometime yesterday(last night?) ordered return of Garcia to the US.
Today 9:30a Supplemental declaration from someone with direct knowledge of his location and status, what they have done so far to bring him to US, and what steps are planned to bring him to US.
Today 1:00p In person status conference

Reply Quote
1 edit
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:37a, 4/11/25
Turley Article about the above(Garcia)

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/04/11/a-writ-of-facilitation-court-issues-curious-order-in-the-garcia-case/

Quote:
After the ruling, many on the left claimed "Supreme Court in a unanimous decision: He has a legal right to be here, and you have to bring him back."

It is a bit more ambiguous than that. The Court actually warned that the district court could order the government to facilitate but not necessarily "to effectuate" the return.

...

So what does that mean? The Court disagrees with many, including the Fourth Circuit, that President Trump had no inherent executive powers to countermand the district court's order. He clearly does have countervailing powers that have to be weighed more heavily in the matter. The district court is expressly ordered to show "due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

What is left is a legal pushmi-pullyu that seems to be going in both directions at once. What if the Trump Administration says that inquiries were made, but the matter has proven intractable or unresolvable? Crickets.

No one would seriously believe that, but what right does the district court have to manage the relations or communications with a foreign country?

The problem with this shadow docket decision is that there is more shadow than sunlight in its meaning.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:50a, 4/11/25
Thread... She is still writing. And seeing others chime in that DOJ might have missed 930 deadline.


Reply Quote
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:28a, 4/11/25
Xinis is behaving as though this is being handled in an NPR newsroom. It's not.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 9:41a, 4/11/25
nortex97 said:
Xinis is behaving as though this is being handled in an NPR newsroom. It's not.
That is a very simple explainer of what is happening. An I appreciate ship for the low lawyerly explanation.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:41a, 4/11/25
The rest:
Quote:
Having been able to read the Order more carefully now, as is often the case with these kinds of Orders on the Court's "emergency docket" that come from motions before the case reaches SCOTUS, yesterday's Order is almost as important for what it doesn't say as for what it does say.

The Order is relatively short, and none of the Justices filed a dissenting statement. So, in that regard, it can be said that the Court was unanimous in its view.

First, the only issue in this case is what to do with Mr. Garcia's right, pursuant to an Immigration Judge's Order, to not be returned to El Salvador via U.S. Govt action -- which is what happened.

As Chief Justice Roberts did in earlier district court order in the USAID funding case with a "ticking clock" for the Admin. to act pursuant to a court order, he stopped that clock with a stay just prior to the deadline being reached. Now -- as before -- the Court has taken the position that the deadline in the Court's order has passed, so that aspect is moot. No more Court-imposed time deadlines that interfere with the Administration's ability to take the steps it is being ordered to take where the deadline compromises the effort.

Just as the Court directed the district judge in the earlier case to provide more clear guidance to the Administration on precisely what it needed to do to comply with the TRO issued in that case, the Court has done the same thing with respect to Mr. Garcia.

The district judge's order is that the Administration -- which has conceded its error -- "facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego
Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7."

The Court's Order states that since the deadline came and went while CJ Robert's Administrative Stay was in place, the "the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective." The Court does not make reference to the imposed deadline again -- which is a way of communicating to the lower court judge "Don't set deadlines and force us to act again."

The Court then turned its attention to the words used in the order -- "facilitate and effectuate."

As to the former, the same problem persists as was true in the earlier USAID case -- what precisely did the district judge mean by this? The Court says explicitly the lower court order "requires clarification on remand."

So the lower court order was not vacated -- meaning that the district judge can continue the case in search of a remedy for Garcia's illegal removal. But the lower court must be specific as to what that remedy is.

This is the part that is maddening to non-practitioners, particularly those who don't make a hobby of studying how the SCOTUS does its work.
Everyone believes it would be simpler if the 9 Justices just made that decision themselves and published an Order telling the Administration what to do -- or not do. But that is not the way the process works. The SCOTUS does not bring witnesses before it to get testimony about the facts of a case and then resolve conflicts among conflicting factual information. That is the function of lower courts.

It is mid-April. The Court has 11 weeks left in its current term. It has dozens of cases that have been argued and submitted, and it must decide those cases and publish opinions over that time period. In other words, it has its job still to do and it cannot allow itself to be diverted into doing the jobs assigned to lower courts.

"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."

1) Get him released from custody, and 2) handle the case as it would have been had he not been sent to El Salvador.

Getting him out of custody is not the same as returning him to the US. Garcia is in the El Salvadoran prison not because the El Salvadoran Govt sent him there, he's in the prison because the US Govt is paying El Salvador to hold him there on behalf of the US Govt.

Getting him out of custody should be simply a matter of ending the arrangement between the two that pays El Salvador to keep him in the prison.

The second part -- handle the case as would have been done in the US -- is simpler than it appears.

First option: there seems to be no dispute that he was subject to an Order of Removal. The mistake of sending him to El Salvador can be corrected by simply sending him to another country. The complication there is that he must be accepted by the third country. You can't simply ship a non-citizen to a third country without that country's agreement to receive him.

Second option: reopen his immigration case before an Immigration Judge and eliminate the "Withdrawal of Removal." This can be done by establishing with new evidence that the basis for imposing the "Withdrawal of Removal" in 2019 is no longer a matter of concern.

Although the Order is not precise, Garcia was granted "Withdrawal of Removal" because of his supposed fear he would be the subject of violent retaliation by the 18th Street Gang in the neighborhood where his family lives. This is a gang that has its origins in the US and Mexico, but has now spread throughout Central America. It is a rival to the MS-13 gang in El Salvador that was founded there, and has now spread throughout Central America and into the United States.

But, the 18th Street Gang has been largely wiped out and imprisoned by current Salvadoran President Bukele. The situation is much different than was the case in 2019 when Garcia was granted his request to not be deported back to El Salvador.

The Motion to Reopen is made to the Immigration Court, not the district court in Maryland. That district court has no jurisdiction over removal proceedings.

Soooooo -- Option 2 is to send an Immigration Judge to the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador, bring Garcia to the Embassy, and have a hearing to reopen his case and delete the "Withdrawal" from his Removal Order. That provides him the due process he would have been entitled to in the U.S.

Then he can be escorted to the front door of the Embassy, and released as a citizen of El Salvador in El Salvador.

Let's go back to the SCOTUS Order:

"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."

This is a polite way of the Court letting the district judge know that "If what you mean is bringing Garcia back into the United States to appear in your courtroom, you don't have the authority to order that. So be careful in how you clarify your prior order."

Finally, I suspect that the Court's direction to the Administration that "the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further
steps" is actually just advice to not repeat the errors involving a lack of candor with the district judge as happened in the TdA case with Judge Boasberg. That only creates a "Clean up on Aisle 4" situation that SCOTUS is going to be expected to fix.

The Court's 5-6 conservatives are much more likely to back the Admin. efforts in the immigration arena if the Administration doesn't play games in the lower courts in terms of the information is provides and doesn't provide. Be clear about what is taking place, and make a clear record about what was done.
Well, that is clear as mud.
Reply Quote
FireAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:45a, 4/11/25
Sounds to me like he can be brought to the embassy, denied immigration, and simply released into El Salvador as a citizen of El Salvador, right?
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 9:49a, 4/11/25
If an immigration judge removes the "Can't be deported to El Salvador" on his final deportation.

If not, just send him to Gitmo if we want to foot his stay.
Reply Quote
FireAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:50a, 4/11/25
will25u said:
If an immigration judge removes the "Can't be deported to El Salvador" on his final deportation.

If not, just send him to Gitmo if we want to foot his stay.

Okay, so there seems to be an easy off ramp…

What state was he detained in (so what state would send the immigration judge)?
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 9:51a, 4/11/25
FireAg said:
Sounds to me like he can be brought to the embassy, denied immigration, and simply released into El Salvador as a citizen of El Salvador, right?
Hell if I know, at this point. What is the legal distinction between "facilitate" and "effectuate" is unclear to me. Move to extradite him? We aren't sending in the 82 Airborne to get him, obviously.

Very confusing to me.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 9:52a, 4/11/25
FireAg said:
will25u said:
If an immigration judge removes the "Can't be deported to El Salvador" on his final deportation.

If not, just send him to Gitmo if we want to foot his stay.

Okay, so there seems to be an easy off ramp…

What state was he detained in (so what state would send the immigration judge)?
Not sure how that works, but all over the country I believe.

He was detained in Maryland. But not sure if that means anything.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:54a, 4/11/25
Next post gets #1000!


Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:58a, 4/11/25
Guess I'll grab it..


Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 10:10a, 4/11/25
will25u said:
Wow... Really quick schedule.

Judge sometime yesterday(last night?) ordered return of Garcia to the US.
Today 9:30a Supplemental declaration from someone with direct knowledge of his location and status, what they have done so far to bring him to US, and what steps are planned to bring him to US.
Today 1:00p In person status conference

I like how the DOJ is effectively making this judge look more and more like an unhinged a-hole.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
1 edit
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 10:19a, 4/11/25
This is poking a stick directly into the court's eye.

The DOJ is just daring the court to find the admin in contempt for disobeying a very rash and stupid temper-tantrum of an order.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
HoustonAg9999
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 10:27a, 4/11/25
BusterAg said:
This is poking a stick directly into the court's eye.

The DOJ is just daring the court to find the admin in contempt for disobeying a very rash and stupid temper-tantrum of an order.
yeah what can the court do about that? nothing
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:28a, 4/11/25
9:30 deadline extended to....

11:30 Today. 2 hours. Guess the 1p status hearing is still on?


Reply Quote
1 edit
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 10:48a, 4/11/25
She mad.

This whole thing is high drama, and very entertaining.

I am interested to see how this all plays out.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:58a, 4/11/25
Missed 11:30 also.

This is going to go nuclear soon.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:13a, 4/11/25
aggiehawg said:
FireAg said:
Sounds to me like he can be brought to the embassy, denied immigration, and simply released into El Salvador as a citizen of El Salvador, right?
Hell if I know, at this point. What is the legal distinction between "facilitate" and "effectuate" is unclear to me. Move to extradite him? We aren't sending in the 82 Airborne to get him, obviously.

Very confusing to me.
IMO, facilitate would be taking steps to enable it to happen. Effectuate would be actually making it happen, which the administration cannot possibly do, since El Salvador is also involved in the matter.

I think many of these judges are timing their actions such that it all makes the weekend news cycle. These are clearly political judges, so they're making drama for the Sunday morning news shows. They want to be superhero RESISTERS.
Reply Quote
1 edit
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:34a, 4/11/25
I can't read the image very well, but Government is saying I can't do anything because you won't clarify what your words meant that SCOTUS said to clarify. And too short notice.




Also
Reply Quote
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:46a, 4/11/25
Using very obscure and rarely used legal procedures just adds more mud to an already muddy situation.
Reply Quote
GenericAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:47a, 4/11/25
aggiehawg said:
Using very obscure and rarely used legal procedures just adds more mud to an already muddy situation.


Isn't that what we've seen over the last 9 years as a theme?
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 11:49a, 4/11/25
will25u said:
Wow... Really quick schedule.

Judge sometime yesterday(last night?) ordered return of Garcia to the US.
Today 9:30a Supplemental declaration from someone with direct knowledge of his location and status, what they have done so far to bring him to US, and what steps are planned to bring him to US.
Today 1:00p In person status conference

The court DIRECTS the government to detail the steps taken to facilitate his return.

0930: Your honor, we asked them to release him. They said no. We asked again. They said **** off. Would you like to exercise your Article II powers to tell us what to do next?

As an aside, when he hits US soil, that should end this case. He already has a removal order. Bring him back and then deport him to Haiti.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:50a, 4/11/25
aggiehawg said:
Using very obscure and rarely used legal procedures just adds more mud to an already muddy situation.
That is the AIDS Dr case I believe if you didn't catch it. I got reprimanded on some thread about not posting more tweets in one post. Not that it has any bearing on what I do.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GenericAggie • 11:52a, 4/11/25
GenericAggie said:
aggiehawg said:
Using very obscure and rarely used legal procedures just adds more mud to an already muddy situation.


Isn't that what we've seen over the last 9 years as a theme?
Well when even Turley is scratching his head trying to figure out what the Court is saying, that's something new, in my view.
Reply Quote
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:34p, 4/11/25
District judge apparently went psycho on the bench this afternoon. Basically said scotus affirmed my order in full and way isn't this guy back and I demand daily updates about what you're doing.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.