This is one of those situations where you don’t know if Trump is lying or misinformed by his own people. The National Guard weren’t deployed to the city, according to the mayor.
Soooo not classified information then? I wonder how that will go over with the judge given statements in yesterday's hearing.
The rule of law wins today. At least in this moment in time, in this case.
New filing: "City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump (Immigration Enforcement in Sanctuary Cities)"
Doc #111: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Download PDF | View Full Case
#CL69623767
These extraordinary renditions need to end. This is not deportation. This is something far far more dark and cruel and flat out immoral. History will judge us harshly as a country if our Courts allow this to stand.
1/ “It’s what happened to us, only on steroids.”
I spoke with a former World War II internee and descendants about the dangers of invoking the Alien Enemies Act:
Tons of conclusory statements in this affidavit. I’m sure the plaintiffs will point that out.
Lee v. Madigan from the Supreme Court (1959) is also important in determining what is the legal threshold for a "war" or invasion" or "hostilities. Either way, both important reads today.
supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...
Important legal read of the day. Ludeke v. Watkins issued by the Supreme Court in 1948, here's the link: supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...
Excellent and helpful, from Ahilan Arulanantham and Adam Cox. And chilling: "whatever happens next, we can already say that Khalil’s case involves an assertion of government power over lawful permanent residents far beyond what we have seen in decades, if ever."
www.justsecurity.org/109012/legal...
This alarmingly points to rarely invoked provision of immigration law - 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C) - which allows the Secretary of State to initiate removal as long as someone’s presence has “serious adverse” consequences on foreign policy. The immigration courts hold that it’s not a high bar if invoked.
If you're an immigration lawyer, please take a moment to read In re Ruiz-Massieu, 22 I&N Dec. 83 (BIA), Interim Decision 3400, 1999 WL 376814
Today.
Hassoun says the extraordinary power of indefinite detention for those suspected of terrorism should be construed narrowly and invoked rarely. TBD on what that means in this case. Public reporting doesn’t seem to raise the type of national security threats that the Hassoun decision talks about.
It’s publicly unclear what ICE is charging him with, but historically, ICE and DOJ argue that people detained on national security grounds (e.g. material support) can be detained indefinitely and are not eligible for bond hearings. (Hassoun v Searls in the 2nd circuit).
Respectfully, Garland v. Gonzalez is just about class wide injunctions. There are lots of current circuit and district court decisions holding that the Constitution demands a bond hearing for ICE detention (namely Black v Decker) in the 2nd circuit. Circuits are split on this issue though.
Lots of congressional people are really telling on themselves that they don't read caselaw...or fourth amendment law...or constitutional law... or maybe the law in general?
Interesting to see how that provision will play out against a legal challenge that it’s a separation of powers breach of the President’s foreign relations power… but who will have standing to bring that case? Maybe a national of a country that’s enjoined? Hawaii v. Trump looms large here
Hi Rebecca, For what its worth, overstaying a visa is largely not a crime. ("As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v. U.S. - SCOTUS 2012). I think verbiage matters a lot in this era. (Wanted to msg privately but couldn't figure out how)
⚠️ 👀 Trump Officials are looking to replace much of the grant funding attorneys within the Department of Justice. I see where this is going...
wokewagon.aflegal.org?swp_formform...
Happy Thanksgiving. I’m grateful that data > rhetoric.
It seems that the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine is going to play a major role in litigation over the next few years.
Is Trump's plan for mass deportation legal? In particular, can states and cities be forced to cooperate with the federal government? The answer is no, according to Prof. Elora Mukherjee of Columbia University Law School.
