1/ In Thuraissigiam, the SG argues that habeas doesn't apply at all to deportation decisions, such as to deny asylum--a notion that is, at the very least, in some tension with the SCOTUS decision in St. Cyr.
supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/1…
#appellatetwitter
#SCOTUS
supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/1…
#appellatetwitter
#SCOTUS
2/ In order to address that precedent, the SG writes (p.18):
"[T]his Court suggested in St. Cyr that the Suspension Clause may require 'some judicial intervention in deportation cases.' 533 U.S. at 300."
(He writes the same at p.31, substituting "indicated" for "suggested.")
"[T]his Court suggested in St. Cyr that the Suspension Clause may require 'some judicial intervention in deportation cases.' 533 U.S. at 300."
(He writes the same at p.31, substituting "indicated" for "suggested.")
3/ Here's what the Court wrote in St. Cyr itself, 533 U.S. at 300:
"Because of [the Suspension] Clause, some 'judicial intervention in deportation cases' is *unquestionably* 'required by the Constitution.'" [quoting Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 235 (1953).]
"Because of [the Suspension] Clause, some 'judicial intervention in deportation cases' is *unquestionably* 'required by the Constitution.'" [quoting Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 235 (1953).]
4/ Unfortunate and uncharacteristic, IMHO--and also unnecessary (b/c the SG probably has a sympathetic majority) and unwise (b/c surely the rewording and elision wouldn't go unnoticed).
