BỊ THUA VÌ… LỘN TÙ
Hôm nay, giáo sư Jonathan Turley giúp chúng ta thấu hiểu phán quyết của Tối Cao Pháp Viện Hoa Kỳ khi bác bỏ thẩm quyền của Chánh án James Boasberg tại Tòa án Liên bang Khu vực Thủ đô về việc Chính quyền Trump trục xuất các can phạm của tổ chức tội ác Tren de Aragua đang bị giam tại Texas. Chính quyền Trump viện dẫn đạo luật 1798 Alien Enemies Act là đúng, quyết định của Boasberg sai vì lầm tù lộn chỗ (khái niệm ‘habeas’) khi ông ngồi tại thủ đô Washington D.C. mà các can phạm lại bị giam tại Texas!
Phân tách của giáo sư Turley còn lý thú hơn khi ông đi vào chi tiết để nói Thẩm phán Tối Cao Pháp Viện Amy Coney Barrett sai bét khi ngả theo lập trường của Thẩm phán cực tả Ketanji Brown Jackson. Ả KJB không chỉ nổi danh là tránh phân biệt tính phái đực cái của mình, mà còn đoạt giải cực ngu khi so sánh thành viên của băng đảng tội ác Tren de Aragua với người Mỹ gốc Nhật bị chế độ F.D. Rosevelt tập trung trong Thế Chiến II!
Sau vụ này, có lẽ báo chí cánh hữu sẽ chiếu cố thẩm phán Amy Coney Barrett vì đã nhiều lần bỏ phiếu theo lý luận thiên tả mà tưởng là cấp tiến! Trên kia Chúa cũng lắc đầu.
Take Thyself to Texas: The Supreme Court Rules For Trump on Stay and Jurisdiction Over Deportations
(Jonathan Turley - Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Supreme Court - April 8, 2025)
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a victory to the Trump Administration on the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act of suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. The Court ruled that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s March 15 order temporarily blocking deportation was invalid and that he should never have proceeded in the case. Rather, as some of us previously argued, the Court ruled that this is a habeas case that should be heard in Texas. Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh to support the Administration.
Boasberg’s actions have been closely followed and heralded by many. However, for some of us, this seemed like an odd habeas action where jurisdiction should reside in Texas. The concern was that, as shown in a number of these cases, the challengers forum shopped to get a favorable judge like Boasberg in Washington.
The Court ruled, “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.” That should have been Judge Boasberg’s response when the challengers first came to his courtroom. Instead, he set off a series of irregular hearings, including holding an emergency hearing on a Saturday despite not being the designated judge for such emergency matters that week.
The justices held that custody detainees are entitled to a hearing before deportation. However, the majority also offered key support for the Administration’s argument over presidential authority, writing “[c]hallenges 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.”
The decision not only overturned Boasberg’s order but also declared the District of Columbia an inappropriate venue for the case. That is a considerable victory for the Trump Administration and validates its long-standing position in the case.
Yet, it also reaffirmed that “[r]egardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas.” Those in custody will be accorded a hearing, though the odds are weighted heavily against them in prevailing in such a habeas action. That may be part of the reason the challengers seemed to equivocate on whether this was a habeas or Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case.
The majority takes a slight dig at the liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, noting that “[f]or all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.”
That line may be directed most at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who compared the deportations to the mass confinement of Japanese Americans in World War II and the decision in Korematsu.
“I lament that the Court appears to have embarked on a new era of procedural variability, and that it has done so in such a casual, inequitable, and, in my view, inappropriate manner. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___ , ___ (2025) (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). At least when the Court went off base in the past, it left a record so posterity could see how it went wrong. See, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.”
It is a bit more difficult to discern Justice Barrett’s position, who again joined the liberal justices. However, Barrett only joined in Parts II and III-B of the dissenting opinion. Part II is merely a couple of paragraphs long and deals with the fact that these detainees must receive due process. However, the majority held that such due process must be afforded. The Court is unanimous on that point.
It is Part III-B that is curious. That section states in part:
Also troubling is this Court’s decision to vacate summarily the District Court’s order on the novel ground that an individual’s challenge to his removal under the Alien Enemies Act “fall[s] within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus” and must therefore be filed where the plaintiffs are detained. . . . This conclusion is dubious.
Dubious? What precisely does that mean? If it is not a habeas, what is it? Given the majority’s ruling in favor of due process for the detainees, Barrett’s adoption of a fraction of the dissenting opinion left much unclear as to her view on what standard applies to these detainees.
Both sides can walk away with something in this opinion. For the challengers, it does reaffirm due process. However, as noted earlier, the habeas process will prove very difficult for these detainees under the controlling standards. This is more likely to offer a process but not the result that these challengers are seeking.
No comments:
Post a Comment