T
TankTop5
Audioholic Samurai
Fox News left Trumps base years ago.
"Let our rigorous testing and reviews be your guidelines to A/V equipment – not marketing slogans"
D
Dude#1279435
Audioholic Warlord
M
Mr._Clark
Audioholic Samurai
The judge stated that the people in question can be deported under other laws.
>>>Boasberg noted the Trump administration is still free to deport Venezuelans through regular immigration authorities.
“The Order did not prevent Defendants from removing anyone — to include members of the class — through other immigration authorities such as the [Immigration and Nationality Act]. Indeed, as previously mentioned, those affiliated with Tren de Aragua were all already deportable under that statute as members of an [Foreign Terrorist Organization],” he wrote.<<< (emphasis added)
For the most part, federal judges are not opposed to deporting people who meet the applicable legal criteria. The appearance is that the administration deliberately choose the Alien Enemies Act for some unknown reason. Perhaps it was an effort to create a political spectacle or to create a test case that could be appealed to the Supreme Court. Conceivably it boils down to poor judgement.
Based on what is publicly known at this time, the whole thing seems bizarre to me.
>>>Boasberg noted the Trump administration is still free to deport Venezuelans through regular immigration authorities.
“The Order did not prevent Defendants from removing anyone — to include members of the class — through other immigration authorities such as the [Immigration and Nationality Act]. Indeed, as previously mentioned, those affiliated with Tren de Aragua were all already deportable under that statute as members of an [Foreign Terrorist Organization],” he wrote.<<< (emphasis added)
For the most part, federal judges are not opposed to deporting people who meet the applicable legal criteria. The appearance is that the administration deliberately choose the Alien Enemies Act for some unknown reason. Perhaps it was an effort to create a political spectacle or to create a test case that could be appealed to the Supreme Court. Conceivably it boils down to poor judgement.
Based on what is publicly known at this time, the whole thing seems bizarre to me.
Last edited:
mtrycrafts
Seriously, I have no life.
Ignorance?
M
Mr._Clark
Audioholic Samurai
Here's a snip from the judge's opinion posted today:
>>>To preserve the status quo until Plaintiffs’ claims could be properly adjudicated, the Court issued two Temporary Restraining Orders that together prohibited the Government from relying solely on the Proclamation to remove the named Plaintiffs or any other Venezuelan noncitizens in its custody. Neither Order required the Government to release a single individual from its custody. Neither Order prevented the Government from apprehending anyone pursuant to the just-published Proclamation. And neither Order prevented the Government from deporting anyone — including Plaintiffs — through authorities other than the Proclamation, such as the INA. Indeed, as the President last month designated Tren de Aragua a Foreign Terrorist Organization, members of the gang are already inadmissible to (and thus deportable from) the United States under the INA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B). . . .
It is important to stress once again that the Order was narrow: it prevented Defendants only from removing the Plaintiff class on the sole basis of the Proclamation. In other words, the Order did not prevent Defendants from removing anyone — to include members of the class — through other immigration authorities such as the INA. Indeed, as previously mentioned, those affiliated with Tren de Aragua were all already deportable under that statute as members of an FTO. See 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B). The Order also did not require Defendants to release a single person held in their custody, even individuals held only on the basis of the Proclamation. And it did not even prevent Defendants from apprehending noncitizens under the authority of the Proclamation (or any other law, for that matter).<< (emphasis added)
Here's the applicable provision from 8 USC 1227 cited by the judge:
>>>(B) Terrorist activities
Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.<<<
8 U.S. Code § 1227 - Deportable aliens
www.law.cornell.edu
The judge partly waived off on the political question doctrine
>>>Although it contends otherwise, the Government more fundamentally asserts that the Court has no business intruding into these nonjusticiable political questions. See Mot. to Vacate at 11–13. Given the broad powers the Executive possesses in national security and foreign affairs, this issue is a close call, and one the Court need not resolve today. . . .
The thorny issues of justiciability just described do not attend the entirely separate determination that an individual detained or removed under the Proclamation is, in fact, an “alien enemy,” 50 U.S.C. § 21, as defined by the President’s Proclamation — i.e., a Venezuelan citizen 14 years of age or older who is a member of Tren de Aragua and not a naturalized or lawful permanent resident of the United States. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 13034, § 1. As the Government essentially concedes, see Mot. to Vacate at 8; Mar. 21 Hearing Tr. at 13–15, an unbroken line of precedent establishes that federal courts may review under habeas the factual basis for an “alien enemy” determination when it is challenged.<<< (emphasis added)
The opinion is 37 pages, but it's an interesting read if one wants to get up to speed on the legal issues involved.
M
Mr._Clark
Audioholic Samurai
I've wondered about that. Bondi has little to no experience in federal court, let alone immigration law (which is surprisingly complex and convoluted).
Off hand I'd think the brass would consult with people in the DOJ with experience in this area, but I might be wrong. There seems to be a general attitude that "We know best and we're not interested in any other points of view."
But, who knows? I certainly do not have any inside information.
Trell
Audioholic Spartan
D
Dude#1279435
Audioholic Warlord
GO-NAD!
Audioholic Warlord
You were saying about Bondi....?Another curious aspect of this is that the administration is reportedly considering invoking the state secrets doctrine to avoid disclosing information concerning the flights.
>>>Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed Cabinet-level discussions were happening Friday to discuss whether President Donald Trump should invoke the state-secrets privilege to avoid disclosing information about deportations of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act, . . .
But Attorney General Pam Bondi led Justice Department lawyers in arguing that revealing information about the flights could lead to "catastrophic" harm to foreign affairs.<<<
Justice Department confirms Cabinet talks about Trump keeping deportation info secret
Trump's Cabinet is discussing whether to invoke a state-secrets privilege to avoid revealing info on Venezuelan deportations, which a judge demanded.www.usatoday.com
AG Bondi:
>>>“They’re meddling in foreign affairs. They’re meddling in our government,” she said. “And the question should be, why is a judge trying to protect terrorists who have invaded our country over American citizens?”<<< (emphasis added)
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5204161-bondi-judge-flight-deportation/
Okay, if these are terrorists that invaded our country, and disclosing information about the flights would catastrophic, why didn't the administration file in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court? No, I'm not making this up, there is a court specifically created by congress to deal with this exact situation (if the administration's claims are to be believed).
>>>In 1996 Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court as a special court . . . The statute authorized the Attorney General to draft an application for removal of a suspected alien terrorist, and to submit the application to the removal court under seal. A single judge may grant the application upon a finding that the alien in question has been identified correctly as an alien terrorist present in the United States and that removal under other available legal means would pose a risk to national security.<<<
Alien Terrorist Removal Court, 1996-present | Federal Judicial Center
Information on individual courts includes judge lists, succession charts, legislative history, district organization, meeting places, records and bibliography…www.fjc.gov
And, it's an expedited process:
>>>(d) Expeditious and confidential nature of proceedings
The provisions of section 103(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(c)) shall apply to removal proceedings in the same manner as they apply to proceedings under that Act [50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.].<<<
8 U.S. Code § 1532 - Establishment of removal court
www.law.cornell.edu
And, low and behold, there are procedures in place, helpfully titled "ALIEN TERRORIST REMOVAL PROCEDURES"
Subchapter V. ALIEN TERRORIST REMOVAL PROCEDURES
Searchable text of the Subchapter V. ALIEN TERRORIST REMOVAL PROCEDURES (US Code), including Notes, Amendments, and Table of Authoritieswww.govregs.com
Here's what's required:
>>>(D) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied on by the Department of Justice to establish probable cause that—
(i) the alien is an alien terrorist;
(ii) the alien is physically present in the United States; and
(iii) with respect to such alien, removal under subchapter II would pose a risk to the national security of the United States.<<<
Gee, this looks the perfect law and the perfect court for this situation. Fast, confidential, no need to post a statement (supposedly) signed by the president at night a few hours before the planes were in flight, followed by a sh*t load of sanctimonious blather about terrorists, crazy judges, highly critical security information that supposedly cannot be disclosed to a court, etc.
Why not use this law? Perhaps Trump was concerned about potential due process issues? (BWA HA HA HA, after the process the administration actually used?)
I more or less expect Trump to blast the American people with huge loads of bullsh*t, but Bondi is a disgrace to the legal profession.
Bondi demands Crockett apologize for aggravated mean to Elon
Hurting Musk's feefees is not a crime no matter how many Fox hits the AG does.
open.substack.com
M
Mr._Clark
Audioholic Samurai
It's interesting (for lack of a better word) that the administration is asserting that disclosing the timing of the deportation flights would ""cause significant harm to the national security of the United States"You were saying about Bondi....?
Bondi demands Crockett apologize for aggravated mean to Elon
Hurting Musk's feefees is not a crime no matter how many Fox hits the AG does.open.substack.com
>>>In a sworn affidavit, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem argued that disclosing the timing of the flights or the number of alleged gang members on board each flight would "cause significant harm to the national security of the United States" by exposing "critical means and methods of law enforcement operations" and potentially harming diplomatic relationships.<<<
Administration invokes state secrets privilege to shield info on deportation flights
The Trump administration is invoking state secrets privilege to avoid giving a judge more information about last week's deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act.
abcnews.go.com
But, the administration also asserts that in Hegseth's case, disclosing information concerning the launch times of F-18s, drones, and Tomahawks on an unsecure app* before the attacks is basically just an inconsequential little boo-boo**
>>>Gabbard, Hegseth and Waltz have defended the Signal texts by arguing that the discussions did not involve “sources and methods” or certain other details.<<<
*>>>Pentagon warned staffers against using Signal before White House chat leak
Bulletin sent on 18 March said Russian hackers could access messages as Trump officials now downplay blunder<<<
Pentagon warned staffers against using Signal before White House chat leak
Bulletin sent on 18 March said Russian hackers could access messages as Trump officials now downplay blunder
www.theguardian.com
**Trump's actual words:
>>>“So this was not classified,” Mr. Trump said during a meeting with U.S. ambassadors at the White House. “Now if it’s classified information, it’s probably a little bit different, but I always say, you have to learn from every experience.”<<<
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03/25/us/trump-hegseth-war-plans-leak-signal
mtrycrafts
Seriously, I have no life.
Just mind boggling how they operate. Or maybe not.It's interesting (for lack of a better word) that the administration is asserting that disclosing the timing of the deportation flights would ""cause significant harm to the national security of the United States"
>>>In a sworn affidavit, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem argued that disclosing the timing of the flights or the number of alleged gang members on board each flight would "cause significant harm to the national security of the United States" by exposing "critical means and methods of law enforcement operations" and potentially harming diplomatic relationships.<<<
Administration invokes state secrets privilege to shield info on deportation flights
The Trump administration is invoking state secrets privilege to avoid giving a judge more information about last week's deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act.abcnews.go.com
But, the administration also asserts that in Hegseth's case, disclosing information concerning the launch times of F-18s, drones, and Tomahawks on an unsecure app* before the attacks is basically just an inconsequential little boo-boo**
View attachment 72938
>>>Gabbard, Hegseth and Waltz have defended the Signal texts by arguing that the discussions did not involve “sources and methods” or certain other details.<<<
*>>>Pentagon warned staffers against using Signal before White House chat leak
Bulletin sent on 18 March said Russian hackers could access messages as Trump officials now downplay blunder<<<
Pentagon warned staffers against using Signal before White House chat leak
Bulletin sent on 18 March said Russian hackers could access messages as Trump officials now downplay blunderwww.theguardian.com
**Trump's actual words:
>>>“So this was not classified,” Mr. Trump said during a meeting with U.S. ambassadors at the White House. “Now if it’s classified information, it’s probably a little bit different, but I always say, you have to learn from every experience.”<<<
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03/25/us/trump-hegseth-war-plans-leak-signal
So far only one person out there mentioned the legal requirement to keep government records, including telephone messaging. Signals does not keep records so they are also breaking laws on record keeping.
How many other chats on Signals will not be reported let alone keeping records? How many other conversations contained classified info?
I guess the leader had all those really classified records in bathrooms sets a great example for his department heads.
But all this was predictable from unqualified, clueless people leading our agencies.
M
Mr._Clark
Audioholic Samurai
The appeals court refused to lift the district court order.
>>>A federal appeals court in a 2-1 decision Wednesday refused to lift U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s order blocking the Trump administration from swiftly deporting migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.
The Justice Department had urged the three-judge panel on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to immediately block Boasberg’s order, casting it as an intrusion on the president’s executive authority over national security.<<<
These are all just preliminary rulings, of course. The administration will presumably appeal this to the Supreme Court, and anything could happen there. My impression is that this Supreme Court is anxious to neuter itself and effectively write Article III out of the Constitution (at least with regards to issues involving executive branch power), so the administration could win at the Supreme Court.
>>>A federal appeals court in a 2-1 decision Wednesday refused to lift U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s order blocking the Trump administration from swiftly deporting migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.
The Justice Department had urged the three-judge panel on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to immediately block Boasberg’s order, casting it as an intrusion on the president’s executive authority over national security.<<<
These are all just preliminary rulings, of course. The administration will presumably appeal this to the Supreme Court, and anything could happen there. My impression is that this Supreme Court is anxious to neuter itself and effectively write Article III out of the Constitution (at least with regards to issues involving executive branch power), so the administration could win at the Supreme Court.
lovinthehd
Audioholic Jedi
Maybe an option to use it against the drumpf/trump family?
Sitemap
Site Information
Site Information
HTML
