SCOTUS overrules Temporary Restraining Order of District of Columbia Trial Court
In our prior post we discussed the actual text of the Alien Enemies Act (1798) (here: https://appellatespectator.blogspot.com/2025/04/analysis-alien-enemies-act-permits.html) and how the text differs from you may have been told about it by journalists who likely never even skimmed the text. Today we will discuss the recent ruling vacating the temporary restraining order by one Federal trial court judge that sought to control the actions of the executive branch.
Holding
The per curium opinion in Trump v. J.C.G.G. (April 7, 2025, No. 24A931) vacated the TRO granted by trial judge Boasberg, holding the relief sought was in fact "habeas corpus" (Latin: "bring forth the body") relief:
We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA.They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Actand assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “ ‘preclude[s] judicial review,’ ” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). (Id., p. 2.)
Such relief should be requested in the District Court where the person(s) may currently be "confined:"
And “immediate physical release [is not] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.” Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54, 67 (1968); see, e.g., Nance, 597 U. S., at 167 (explaining that a capital prisoner may seek “to overturn his death sentence” in habeas by “analog[y]” to seeking release); In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242, 254, 259 (1894). For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. (Id.)
Due Process
The majority found those being removed under the Alien Enemies Act must be afforded due process, not only because there is at least some, even if very "limited," judicial review under the Act but also because the Fifth Amendment requires such:
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “ ‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees. . . . “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs. (Id., p. 3; citations omitted.)
The dissent
The dissenting four justices wrote somewhat longer dissents, especially when considered in toto. Depending on how one views their attempts to justify filing a petition in Washington, D.C. which in reality seeks habeas relief for persons in Texas, this lengthy dissent may or may not give credence to my "rule" regarding the length of a legal opinion, a rule which is often not true but is a useful starting point for discussion. Specifically, the longer the opinion, majority or dissenting, the more poorly-reasoned it is, as it requires more words to dance around the issue than simply apply the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment