Post

More from @pjaicomo

Patrick Jaicomo

@pjaicomo

Nov 13

My @IJ colleague Anya and I have an oped in @WSJ today, calling out Congress's Animal-Farm-esque decision to create a special cause of action, NOT subject to qualified immunity, for Senators to sue federal officials.

This Senatorial treat is hidden deep in the shutdown deal.
1/

The provision creates a cause of action to sue the U.S. for the acts of federal employees and explicitly precludes qualified immunity.

That sounds great, right? We want federal accountability at @IJ.

Here's the problem: Congress created this action exclusively for SENATORS.

2/

This means 2 things:

(1) Congress KNOWS that the lack of a cause of action against feds AND qualified immunity are hindrances to accountability.

(2) Congress thinks accountability is only for the powerful.

Every member of Congress must be asked to explain this.

3/

Read 4 tweets

Patrick Jaicomo

@pjaicomo

May 16

The Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited ruling in the Alien Enemies Act case, AARP v. Trump.

The Court rules 7-2 that AEA detainees need more notice than was given. So they cannot presently be deported.

Kavanaugh concurs.

Alito and Thomas dissent (as before).

1/

After noting the gamesmanship, SCOTUS explains that the 5th Cir. erred in finding no jurisdiction. There is jurisdiction for emergency appeals when the practical effect of the lower courts is the same as refusing an injunction.

Also, the gov't's notice was insufficient.

2/

Because the gov't took such drastic action so quickly, 24 hour notice is nought enough to satisfy DUE PROCESS, which JJG v. Trump already held is required.

But how much notice is required can be addressed on remand, while an injunction stays in place.

Now, Alito's dissent.

3/

Read 15 tweets

Patrick Jaicomo

@pjaicomo

May 7

🧵Nearly THREE YEARS after @IJ argued the ankle-monitor case Meade v. ETOH, the 5th Cir. issued an unpublished opinion holding that a judge's private, monetary relationship with a private ankle-monitoring company does not "create an unconstitutional risk of judicial bias."

1/

New Orleans judge Paul Bonin ordered defendant's to use a specific ankle-monitoring company: ETOH.

ETOH would send the judge the outstanding bills for the $300 "service."

If defendants didn't pay, the judge would threaten to jail them or refuse to release them from monitoring.

2/

But the judge never disclosed ETOH was run by his former law partner, who (along with the other owner of ETOH) repeatedly made monetary contributions to the judge.

The 5th Cir. held that this wasn't enough to violate due process.

The court gives 3 reasons.

3/

Read 8 tweets

Patrick Jaicomo

@pjaicomo

Apr 26

🧵The gov’t is lying to avoid due process.

4/7: In JJG v. Trump, SCOTUS held that the D.C. District Court lacked habeas jurisdiction.

Still, SCOTUS held that Alien Enemy detainees are entitled to notice “in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief.”

1/

4/14: AG Bondi promulgated a memo to all federal police.

Directly contradicting SCOTUS, Bondi ordered police to falsely tell all AEA detainees they are “not entitled to a hearing, appeal, or judicial review of the apprehension and removal warrant.”

This memo stayed secret.

2/

4/23: The gov’t opposed a TRO in another AEA case, JAV v. Trump.

There it said the gov’t “developed procedures for aliens” subject to the AEA per SCOTUS in JJG.

It cited a SEALED decl., claiming each detainee is served an English form that’s read and explained in Spanish.

3/

Read 6 tweets

Patrick Jaicomo

@pjaicomo

Apr 7

The Supreme Court just struck down Boasberg’s TRO in Trump v. JJG - the Alien Enemies Act, case.

The decision is disappointing in its application to people the gov’t already renditioned without due process (and seems to encourages the gov’t to evade judicial review), but… 1/

SCOTUS confirms, contrary to what demagogues like @StephenM and @mrddmia have been screaming, that illegal aliens get due process and that the Alien Enemies Act requires notice and an opportunity to be heard *before* removal. This means habeas in the district of confinement. 2/

@StephenM @mrddmia JJG also confirms that the gov’t violated the constitutional rights of every person on the planes to CECOT, but they’re effectively outlaws because of prospective application.

Kavanaugh concurs to say, in large part b/c of War on Terror excesses, the decision isn’t novel. 3/

Read 10 tweets

Patrick Jaicomo

@pjaicomo

Feb 16

https://twitter.com/ilyasomin/status/1890884163072323619

Now that I’ve sat with it, I have a broader critique of @ilan_wurman and @RandyEBarnett’s anti-birthright-citizenship theory.

If the citizenship clause is really about allegiance, it seems incredible that the 14th Amendment’s drafters wouldn’t have spelled that out.

Why? 1/3

https://twitter.com/ilyasomin/status/1890884163072323619

Because the 14th Amendment was, of course, passed as a result of the Civil War.

If citizenship turned on allegiance, that would have opened a Pandora’s box of questions pertaining to the citizenship status of, at least, confederate leaders, and, at most, all southerners. 2/3

If the issue is allegiance, the child of Honduran immigrant who permanently (albeit illegally) moved to the U.S. for a better life surely has more allegiance to U.S. law than Winnie Davis, who was born while her dad was the president of the CSA and waging war against the U.S. 3/3

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Patrick Jaicomo

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @pjaicomo

Patrick Jaicomo

Patrick Jaicomo

Patrick Jaicomo

Patrick Jaicomo

Patrick Jaicomo

Patrick Jaicomo

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!