Kilmar Abrego Garcia Back in the United States
The Trump Administration returned the illegally deported migrant from imprisonment in El Salvador after repeatedly claiming they could not do so.
The Trump Administration returned the illegally deported migrant from imprisonment in El Salvador after repeatedly claiming they could not do so.
Without such intervention, he warns, the government "could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action."
The brief was filed on behalf of the Brennan Center, the Cato Institute, law-of-war scholar Prof. John Dehn, and myself.
Father of the Constitution James Madison made a distinction between alien enemies and alien friends.
Legal scholar Rebecca Ingber offers some strong arguments against deference in this context.
"It's not just one or two administrative errors," says the Cato Institute's David Bier.
A new Cato Institute study by David Bier presents the most extensive available evidence on these points.
Stephen Miller's trial balloon about abrogating habeas corpus in immigration cases shows how any libertarian with pragmatic intelligence should reject so-called "libertarian" arguments for strict immigration laws.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Court ruled Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act cannot supersede a settlement barring deportation of a group of migrants. One judge also held the AEA was invoked illegally.
Kovarsky and Rave defend the use of class actions in AEA habeas cases. Vladeck highlights the significance of the Supreme Court's grant of an injunction to a "putative class" of AEA detainees.
The ruling held that migrants detained under AEA had not been given adequate notice of their potential deportation. It also reflects the Court's growing distrust of the Trump Administration.
A majority of the justices seem unconvinced the Administration was prepared to provide the process that was due. Justices Alito and Thomas dissent.
The article explains why these claims to emergency powers are illegal and dangerous, and how to stop them.
In a badly flawed decision, a federal district court ruled that Trump can invoke the AEA because the Tren de Aragua drug gang's activities amount to a "predatory incursion."
The court instituted a preliminary injunction against the Administration's use of the Act to deport Venezuelans.
Trump admits he could return migrant illegally deported to El Salvador. And an intelligence community report concludes the Tren de Aragua drug gang isn't controlled by the Venezuelan government.
The Southern District of New York rules Trump invoked the Act illegally, because there is no "invasion" or "predatory incursion."
Federal district court Judge Fernando Rodriguez ruled that Trump invoked the AEA illegally, and that migrants threatened with deportation under the Act can file class action habeas petitions.
I was one of 35 legal scholars who took part.
The degree of agreement among participants with major ideological diferences is striking.
The order temporarily blocks AEA deportations. It likely also reflects the Court's growing frustration with the Trump Administration.
This case has crucial implications for the ability of migrants to effectively challenge illegal AEA deportations.
The Supreme Court oveturns lower court decisions temporarily barring AEA deportations, but also emphasizes that detainees are entitled to due process, and that AEA deportations are subject to judicial review.
A leading expert on habeas corpus explains why the Trump Administration is wrong to claim the case must be heard in Texas, rather than Washington, DC.
The 2-1 ruling is procedural, but strongly suggests the majority judges also reject the Trump administration's position on the merits.
Judge Boasberg ruled the migrants are entitled to due process in determing whether they really are "alien enemies" covered by the Act.
Links to audios of a Cato Institute podcast and an interview with ABC News (Australia).
The participants were Adam Cox (NYU) and myself.
The people deported are incarcerated in Salvadoran prisons without any due process whatsoever.
They used the Act to deport some 137 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador even after a federal court issued a temporary restraining order blocking such action.
The article is coauthored with Cato Institute scholar David Bier.
His apparent plan to do so is illegal and would set a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand.
The article explains why the order is unconstitutional and why letting it stand would be very dangerous, including for the civil liberties of US citizens.
Legal scholar Michael Ramsey points out another way courts could reject Trump's plan to use the act as a tool for peacetime mass deportation.
The plan is illegal. But courts might refuse to strike it down based on the "political questions" doctrine.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10