Continued thread
If the govt fought & lost, it could have legal repercussions, not least of which for the nearly 140 #Venezuelans who were sent to the same facility under the *authority* of the #AlienEnemiesAct.
Recent searches
Search options
#rendition
12 posts1 participant0 posts today
Continued thread
Acc/to the documents, admin ofcls realized quickly that the case had sweeping implications for #Trump’s efforts to remove other #immigrants from the US & send them to #ElSalvador’s megaprison.
As Reuveni pointed out to the group, the case potentially “jeopardizes many far more important initiatives of the current administration.”
Continued thread
“We invoked the #StateSecrets #privilege over many of the details—of course our officials discussed what should be divulged publicly. This just proves they are responsible public servants putting the safety of the American people first. The leakers of these emails, on the other hand, clearly do not care about public safety,” McLaughlin said.
Continued thread
“This was an administrative error,” James Percival, a #DHS official appointed by #Trump, wrote to his colleagues on March 30. “(Not that we should say publicly.)”
Tricia McLaughlin, DHS propagandist, said in a statement that #KilmarAbregoGarcia’s #deportation was part of “a highly sensitive counterterrorism operation with national security implications.” [that’s some hardcore lying.]
Continued thread
In the days before the govt’s error became public, #DHS ofcls discussed trying to portray #KilmarAbregoGarcia as a “leader” of the violent street gang #MS13, even though they could find NO EVIDENCE to support the claim. They considered ways to nullify the original order that barred his #deportation to #ElSalvador. They sought to downplay the danger he might face in one of that country’s most notorious prisons.
Continued thread
A mistake had been made. That much was clear.
But when the news reached the #DHS, it set off a dayslong scramble & clashes among ofcls in 3 different agencies over how to deal w/what everyone knew had been an error. As it became clear that keeping it quiet was not an option, DHS ofcls floated a series of ideas to *control the story* that raised alarms among #DOJ lawyers on the case.
‘Keep Him Where He Is’: How #Trump Ofcls Were Sent Scrambling to Cover Their Asses in the #KilmarAbregoGarcia Case
A Maryland man’s deportation to #ElSalvador set off a fierce debate among ofcls of 3 cabinet agencies, despite agreement there had been a mistake.
The Trump admin had deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a prison in El Salvador, even though a judge had issued a ruling expressly prohibiting that from happening.
#law #immigration #Rendition
#GiftArticle
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-deportation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.I08.piTL.n27B6-Ia0Kk7&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
The New York Times · Inside Trump Officials’ Debate Over Abrego Garcia’s Deportation
Continued thread
It was not immediately clear what #punishment, if any, Judge Murphy intended to mete out against the #Trump admin or those who took part in the operation, but he asked for a list of names so he can notify them that they might all face #criminal #contempt penalties.
Continued thread
A federal judge in Boston said on Wednesday that the #Trump admin had violated an order he issued last month barring ofcls from deporting people to countries not their own without first giving them an opportunity to object to their removal.
The finding by the judge, Brian E. Murphy, was one of the strongest #judicial rebukes the admin has faced so far in a series of contentious cases arising from its sprawling #deportation agenda.
Judge Finds #Trump Admin Violated #CourtOrder with Sudden #Deportation Flight
to Africa
Lawyers for some of the 8 immigrants deported Tuesday said they were told they were being sent to #SouthSudan. People familiar with the plane said it had landed for now in #Djibouti.
#immigration #law #rendition #judiciary
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/south-sudan-deportation.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=p&pvid=291694FB-D343-4DAC-A141-08E0F41D1DCF
The New York Times · Judge Finds U.S. Violated Court Order With Sudden Deportation Flight to Africa
Continued thread
Despite the #Trump admin's claim that the men are all "illegal aliens," it's quite likely that at least some of them had green cards but after they were convicted of a crime they then had their status stripped.
Continued thread
The men did have very serious criminal convictions. Many served decades in prison & all completed their sentences. Were they #UScitizens, they would have been released having served their time. Because they are not citizens, after serving their time, they are now being *deported* & apparently to a country not their own.
#SouthSudan is currently on the brink of a civil war.
Continued thread
All that said, this does nothing to help the people who were already rendered to #ElSalvador illegally by the #Trump admin. That’s a separate case. Which is why this issue should be addressed in a #ClassAction as
argued yesterday before #SCOTUS.
MastodonNonilex (@Nonilex@masto.ai)Justice Kagan asks Sauer to assume that #Trump’s EO on #BirthrightCitizenship is unconstitutional. Since Sauer is questioning whether a #ClassAction lawsuit would be viable in this matter, how long would it take for #SCOTUS to resolve the matter if everyone had to sue individually?
Kagan’s question gets at the practical impact of abolishing #NationwideInjunctions: She is suggesting it would be a chaotic process for many individual plaintiffs across the country fighting for citizenship.
#law
Continued thread
Notably, #Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion saying,
“I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts & further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather,… I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.”
Continued thread
Once the #5thCircuit rules, this almost certainly goes straight back to #SCOTUS for a ruling on the AEA proclamation itself.
I have no doubt the 5th Circuit will say #Trump’s invocation of the #AlienEnemiesAct is legal even though there is no war, invasion or incursion.
I also thoroughly expect the Trump admin to try to continue #deportations without #DueProcess.
Continued thread
#SCOTUS sets up how the litigation will proceed.
The #Trump admin is BARRED from deporting people held in WDTX under the #AlienEnemiesAct pending #SupremeCourt review. The #5thCircuit is ordered to rule not just on #DueProcess, but ALSO on the #underlying merits of the #AEA proclamation.
Continued thread
The #SCOTUS majority ALSO preemptively makes clear (in response to #Alito's written #dissent), that the government cannot get around #ClassAction treatment by agreeing to give notice to the class plaintiffs.
In rejecting jurisdictional arguments raised by the dissent, they bolster the lawsuits challenging the #AlienEnemiesAct.
Continued thread
The 7-justice majority emphasizes that they are not deciding if #Trump's use of the #AlienEnemiesAct is legal 
. But they do make clear that HOW the Trump admin was trying to USE the #law WAS illegal - a very clear violation of DueProcess.
They remand to the #5thCircuit to develop a new test.
#law #immigration #Rendition #StateSponsoredAbduction #Constitution #CivilRights #HumanRights #Judiciary #SeparationOfPowers #AbuseOfPower
I’ll give you 1 guess who the 2 justices are in dissent.
Continued thread
#SCOTUS recites the facts in detail, making clear that the government was about to deport hundreds of people to #ElSalvador without ANY real opportunity to file #HabeasCorpus lawsuits in challenge, a direct violation of their previous order - & mentions #KilmarAbregoGarcia.
![We understood the Government to assert the right to remove the detainees as soon as midnight central time on April 19. The Government addressed the detainees' allegations on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed that day. Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-766, ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next day "would be consistent with" its due process obligations, and it "reserve[d] the right" to take such action. Id., at 26; see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that "tomorrow .. starts at 12:01 a.m."). Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA-including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply 1a-5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Application To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11-20.](https://s3.masto.ai/media_attachments/files/114/519/441/979/502/714/original/9f88393c7df4c057.png "We understood the Government to assert the right to remove the detainees as soon as midnight central time on April 19. The Government addressed the detainees' allegations on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed that day. Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-766, ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next day \"would be consistent with\" its due process obligations, and it \"reserve[d] the right\" to take such action. Id., at 26; see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that \"tomorrow .. starts at 12:01 a.m.\"). Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA-including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply 1a-5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Application To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11-20.")