Federal district court judges continue to issue forceful, important opinions and orders against the Trump regime.
-
“The authority the political branches possess over immigration does not include the power to seize liberty first and justify confinement later. Due process is not a courtesy extended at the government’s convenience. Due process is the condition that makes custody lawful in the first place. …When liberty is restrained without a meaningful opportunity to be heard, the Constitution’s promise is not delayed. It is denied.” 4/
Judge’s bottom line: the way ICE is seizing drivers, confining them, and treating them like criminals is unconstitutional because it is a deprivation of liberty without due process. 5/
-
Judge’s bottom line: the way ICE is seizing drivers, confining them, and treating them like criminals is unconstitutional because it is a deprivation of liberty without due process. 5/
The petitioners in the case are a couple, who have been going through the asylum process, who have lived and worked lawfully in the U.S. for a few years while complying with all the requirements for asylum seekers. 6/
-
The petitioners in the case are a couple, who have been going through the asylum process, who have lived and worked lawfully in the U.S. for a few years while complying with all the requirements for asylum seekers. 6/
Petitioners were stopped by W. Va. state police. The record contains no information as to justification for the stop. ICE arrived on the scene, concluded petitioners were subject to removal and arrest. Petitioners were arrested and jailed. 7/
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
-
Petitioners were stopped by W. Va. state police. The record contains no information as to justification for the stop. ICE arrived on the scene, concluded petitioners were subject to removal and arrest. Petitioners were arrested and jailed. 7/
Narrowly, the fight over the habeas petition to the district court revolves around the Trump regime’s effort to use immigration statutes that limit federal district courts jurisdiction. These statutes make certain determinations by immigration courts reviewable only by either federal courts of appeal or the Secretary of State. 8/
-
Narrowly, the fight over the habeas petition to the district court revolves around the Trump regime’s effort to use immigration statutes that limit federal district courts jurisdiction. These statutes make certain determinations by immigration courts reviewable only by either federal courts of appeal or the Secretary of State. 8/
Habeas petitions must be heard by federal district judges, so the Trump regime is effectively arguing that lawfully present asylum seekers detained and confined by ICE fall outside the protection of habeas. 9/
-
Habeas petitions must be heard by federal district judges, so the Trump regime is effectively arguing that lawfully present asylum seekers detained and confined by ICE fall outside the protection of habeas. 9/
The Trump regime’s argument is yet another facet of its ongoing effort to evade judicial review of its activities. The judge rejects the regime’s position in no uncertain terms. 10/
-
The Trump regime’s argument is yet another facet of its ongoing effort to evade judicial review of its activities. The judge rejects the regime’s position in no uncertain terms. 10/
The judge rejects the Trump regime’s arguments that the immigration statutes it relies on do in fact apply to the petititioners. Those statutes limit the process people detained under them are due. Because the judge concluded they don’t apply to the petitioners, he proceeds to the question of whether they were jailed with or without adequate opportunity to be heard by a tribunal beforehand, as required by the 5th and 14th Amendments. 11/
-
Federal district court judges continue to issue forceful, important opinions and orders against the Trump regime. This one, from a judge in West Virginia, grants habeas corpus to a couple seized by ICE. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvsd.242913/gov.uscourts.wvsd.242913.32.0.pdf #LawFedi 1/
@heidilifeldman These judges are literally doing G-d's work.
-
The judge rejects the Trump regime’s arguments that the immigration statutes it relies on do in fact apply to the petititioners. Those statutes limit the process people detained under them are due. Because the judge concluded they don’t apply to the petitioners, he proceeds to the question of whether they were jailed with or without adequate opportunity to be heard by a tribunal beforehand, as required by the 5th and 14th Amendments. 11/
Because the petitioners were erroneously arrested and detained in the first place and had no hearing prior to being packed off to jail, their confinement is clearly unconstitutional. So, their habeas petitions are granted by the judge. 12/
-
Because the petitioners were erroneously arrested and detained in the first place and had no hearing prior to being packed off to jail, their confinement is clearly unconstitutional. So, their habeas petitions are granted by the judge. 12/
Watch these habeas cases carefully. Judgments and opinions like the one I have been discussing are among the main things impeding the Trump regime’s effort to create a full blown system of concentration camps in this country. That is the fight we are in now: blocking the expansion of such camps as well as shutting down existing ones. 13/13
-
Because the petitioners were erroneously arrested and detained in the first place and had no hearing prior to being packed off to jail, their confinement is clearly unconstitutional. So, their habeas petitions are granted by the judge. 12/
Due process is not a courtesy extended at the government’s convenience.
Due process is the condition that makes custody lawful in the first place. …
When liberty is restrained without a meaningful opportunity to be heard,
the Constitution’s promise is not delayed.
It is denied@mastoreaderio unroll please
-
Due process is not a courtesy extended at the government’s convenience.
Due process is the condition that makes custody lawful in the first place. …
When liberty is restrained without a meaningful opportunity to be heard,
the Constitution’s promise is not delayed.
It is denied@mastoreaderio unroll please
@cdarwin here's the unrolled thread: https://mastoreader.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fc.im%2F%40cdarwin%2F116050693903106888
Next time, kindly set the visibility to 'Mentioned people only' and mention only me (@mastoreaderio). This ensures we avoid spamming others' timelines and threads unless you intend for others to see the unrolled thread link as well.
Thank you!
-
Watch these habeas cases carefully. Judgments and opinions like the one I have been discussing are among the main things impeding the Trump regime’s effort to create a full blown system of concentration camps in this country. That is the fight we are in now: blocking the expansion of such camps as well as shutting down existing ones. 13/13
@heidilifeldman What an amazing judgement - setting out everything necessary to be able to be cited as precedent.
-
Because the petitioners were erroneously arrested and detained in the first place and had no hearing prior to being packed off to jail, their confinement is clearly unconstitutional. So, their habeas petitions are granted by the judge. 12/
@heidilifeldman That it wasn’t erroneously but rather maliciously should mean consequences for everyone involved in doing the arresting
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
The judge emphasizes and insists on the difference between civil regulation and criminal punishment. 2/
@heidilifeldman a breath of fresh air, I have always found it difficult to comprehend why Govs enforce laws without distinction between civil and criminal violations. Thanks for sharing this!
-
Petitioners were stopped by W. Va. state police. The record contains no information as to justification for the stop. ICE arrived on the scene, concluded petitioners were subject to removal and arrest. Petitioners were arrested and jailed. 7/
The document says that there was no reason to stop them. It seems that the stop was due to their physical appearance.
Now, that is unlawful, isn't it? -
The petitioners in the case are a couple, who have been going through the asylum process, who have lived and worked lawfully in the U.S. for a few years while complying with all the requirements for asylum seekers. 6/
@heidilifeldman
On page 7 we find that Valenzuela was working for "Aramark, a private contractor providing services for correctional facilities".If Valenzuela was unlawfully working in the US, did Ice filed a lawsuit against Aramark for hiring illegals? Or should we understand that Aramark had made all appropriate background checks to conclude Valenzuela was respecting the laws?
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
