DISASTROUS. This means they will send people to horrific situations with no due process — in direct violation of promises the Solicitor General made to the Court in previous cases. This greenlights sending people to be enslaved in Libya or tortured in any random foreign country.
#BREAKING: Over a (sharp) public dissent from the three Democratic appointees, #SCOTUS clears the way for the Trump administration to remove migrants to third countries *without* giving them an additional opportunity to contest whether they face persecution or other forms of mistreatment there:
www.supremecourt.gov
Today the GOP justices on the Supreme Court endorsed migrants being sold into slavery. They'll claim otherwise, but that's the reality — today's decision permits Trump to send people from countries around the world to any global hellhole that accepts a U.S. financial incentive.
Sotomayor's dissent is scathing. She accuses her colleagues of a gross abuse of discretion, saying they "interven[ed] to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied." She's right. The 6-justice majority is effectively endorsing contempt of court.
Justice Sotomayor, on the import of what the Supreme Court did today: "The [Trump administration] thus openly flouted two court orders. ... [E]ach time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for the courts and for the rule of law."
Justice Sotomayor ends her dissent by saying the Supreme Court has permitted "thousands [to] suffer violence in farflung locales," an action which "rewards lawlessness" by the Trump administration. She says the Court has undermined the basic concept of Due Process under the law.
It is hard to express enough how terrible today's decision is. ICE will now send people to countries they've never been to or even heard of — Mexicans to South Sudan, Vietnamese to Libya, Venezuelans to Kosovo —and those people will have no right to challenge that decision. The very rule of law is undermined by this. Every immigrant is less safe. Hell, every citizen is less safe. Defiance of court orders will now become far more common, as the Court makes it clear they will step in to save Trump from the consequences of refusal to obey. The D.V.D. litigation provided only a sliver of protection, but it was meaningful. No person could be sent a country not their own with no warning and no opportunity to say "I'll be killed if I got there." That's gone now. They can put people on a plane to Libya with no notice. Immigration law has always been harsh. Third country removals have always been legal. But in modern history we recognized that we have an obligation not to send people to places where they will be persecuted or tortured. This administration has torn up those rules — and SCOTUS let them do it. I'm writing this post in high dudgeon because what the Court endorsed today is unamerican and contemptuous not just of the role of the judiciary but also of the responsibility we have as a nation to those in our custody and those we subject to punishment. I'm mad as hell. You should be too. Trump sees America as a nation of bullies, believing we have the right to strongarm smaller nations into doing our dirty work; to send undesirables to whoever will take them no matter the cost to human rights. I believe America can be better than this. MUST be better than this. Even in my anger I want to make sure people get it right: this doesn't endorse the US paying to have people imprisoned abroad. It endorses sending people with no warning to countries where they may be imprisoned incidentally, just not at US request specifically. So. You know. Slightly different.
according to conservatives on the court, the constitution does not protect your right to your own body but does enable the government to ship you off to a foreign gulag without any hope of return
This part is making me so furious too. NOT ONE WORD. And this is a case with multiple contested legal issues, contempt of court issues, and high stakes, all of which mean their decision could have been based on half a dozen different reasons AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN GIVE ONE.
All without a word of reasoning.
I'm waiting on guidance from the litigators as to the possible next steps in the case, and will share when that information becomes public.
Is there some possibility the First Circuit re stays? I’m clinging to that extremely thin reed
No, as this was not a nationwide injunction, it was an injunction specific to a certified class action lawsuit. bsky.app
Maybe this is a silly question, but do you think this tells us anything about how they may rule about injunctions related to the birthright cases?
Yes, the D.V.D. injunction was specific to a class of people with final orders of removal. So for those unaware of what that means, that means people who have actually gone through some kind of court process (or got a removal order in absentia, with or without knowledge).
This is bad enough but can you please clarify that we are in post final order of removal land at least? That was my understanding of this case at least
I said this to @muellershewrote.com already but the admin was always going to try to deport him to a third country. And the D.V.D. injunction didn't *prevent* that, it just ensured that people had notice and an opportunity to raise torture-based objections, relevant when we're talking about LIBYA. Anyway, if you've made it through this whole thread, then please click one more post and read through to see what the actual injunction was that got halted today. Chris posted the key portions below.
Here is the opening of the injunction just blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court and the concluding, minimal process the district judge had granted: storage.courtlistener.com