🚨New filing in Boasberg Alien Enemies Act case. Amazing this must be said! 1/
2/ That excerpt was from a Declaration filed by Trump Administration in support of its Response in Opposition to New Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. This Response is interesting as it is first effort by Trump Administration to explain whether it is in constructive control
3/ of prisoners.
4/ This paragraph capsulates Trump Administration's position:
5/ Trump Administration then quotes Boasberg back to him to show why no custody:
6/ On this last point, except ACLU to quote Trump in its reply saying if he wanted to he could get Garcia back.
7/ This paragraph is another good synopsis of Trump Administration's position.
8/ Re the "sub-class" of criminals who might be deported...that is such a stretch for jurisdiction Trump doesn't say much about it:
9/ A few thoughts re Trump Administration's position: Trump Administration is correct that Plaintiff has not met burden of showing "in custody," but I anticipate ACLU saying it needs expedited discovery to obtain the "agreement" and depositions of those with notice to agreement.
10/ Without knowing what the actual agreement is, Court will believe it can't decide issue of constructive custody. Here, I'd note there is a reason for this that makes sense: In context of U.S. prisoners are held in "constructive custody" pursuant to contracts.
11/ For instance, feds will have state jails or prisons detain prisoners for feds. So when this case started, everyone (including me), saw the agreement through that prism because why else would El Salvador detain folks, but for contract so it would seem = constructive custody.
12/ But in context of foreign affairs that theory fails about: El Salvador would say "sure, we'll take custody of them Trump because we want to be friends." And Trump would say "Great. And here's some money because we're friends and we appreciate it."
13/ Agreement very likely does transfer "custody" to El Salvador...something we couldn't do with U.S. Citizens (troll as Trump will). And Court lacks authority to interfere here because it is foreign affairs.
14/ Now, that would also likely mean Trump could get tDa back because El Salvador wants to release custody if Trump wants, but forcing Trump to ask is beyond court's authority.
15/ In short, the analysis of "constructive custody" by everyone to date has been off because folks have tried to use analogs of agreements with U.S. prisons and they just don't apply. But to ensure they don't apply, I'd need to see the agreement with El Salvador & I'd wager
16/16 Boasberg will hold the same.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Federal district court enters first merits ruling on Alien Enemies Act habeas case. On question of class certification: Court punts on whether class cert. under Rule 23 is available & considers if All Writs Act provides analog, i.e. another way to do a class. 1/
2/ Court holds "yes," so treating it as a class action which allows ACLU to represent all terrorists Trump seeks to remove under Alien Enemies act whether they ask to challenge removal or not!
3/ Note: This remains limited to the jurisdiction of the d.ct. though, so ACLU still seems to need to file "class actions" in all 94 districts...well it would need to if SCOTUS hadn't entered a stay in a non-case with non-plaintiffs already!
🚨Folks, I'm seeing A LOT of what I believe is misreporting regarding an order entered yesterday by Judge Thurston. Her ACTUAL order appears to be consistent with federal law: 1/
2/ So she is NOT saying they can't arrest without a warrant and it should be easy to prove "flight risk" on an individual basis...in fact that's precisely what ICE requires, which prompted Trump Administration to argue case was moot.
3/ So bottom line the ACTUAL order is merely what law requires & policy states, although the "comply with law" injunctions are disfavored. And entering an injunction requiring following of a policy NOT constitutionally required is problematic. That policy concerns documentation
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: On Sunday, @NCLAlegal on behalf of its clients, @FDRLST and @realDailyWire sent letter to Attorney General Bondi in response to President Trump's EO on censorship and Secretary Rubio's recent announcement of closing new censorship HUB is State Department. 1/
2/ The letter applauded the President's change in policy and efforts undertaken to protect First Amendment rights but noted ongoing concerns.
3/ As we explained, Secretary Rubio's recent announcement of shuttering of the new censorship hub actually validates our concerns that bureaucrats continued stealth efforts to target domestic speech in excess of their foreign remit.
🚨Judge just entered clarifying order in case of 2 year old American. Judge's clarification provides helpful context: In short, Judge sees factual dispute concerning whether mom wanted to take 2 year old or not & that is the Court's concern. 1/
2/ (Sorry got pulled away): Judge's comments & order make much more sense now AND if a legitimate habeas case, Judge seeking to make factual determination would be appropriate, although mom's letter has not been called into question by any of evidence.
3/ Problem though is this is not legitimate habeas case because Plaintiff lacks authority to act on behalf of child because there is no evidence dad has any authority to act on behalf of the child. Under Louisiana law, mom has all parental rights if dad & mom weren't married.
🔥My thoughts below were stream of conscious but after processing, I think it is a huge "discovery" I noted: In short, attorney originally referred to father of 2 year old as husband of mother but in court documents only called him "partner." 1/
2/ Under Louisiana law, if parents are NOT married at time of birth, then mother has all custodial and parental rights. Dad has to prove fatherhood (here proven by birth certificate) AND then obtain legal custodial/parental rights via court proceedings.
3/ So, if they weren't married as seems likely given court documents did not refer to him as husband, it seems very unlikely dad had any legal parental or custodial rights to 2 year old which would mean he couldn't give them to a Provisional Custodian.