Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tra ... istration/
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 21.0_1.pdf

Case 8:25-cv-00951-PX Document 21 Filed 04/04/25

IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRICT COURT

FOR THE DlSTRICT OF MARYLAND


KlLMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-00951-PX

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, along with supporting memoranda, reply briefs, and the record in this case. ECF No.6. The Defendants named in this suit are the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Secretary of State, the Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), the Acting Executive Associate Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, and the Director of ICE's Baltimore Field Office (collectively, the "Defendants"). ECF No. 1.

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia ("Abrego Garcia"), a native of El Salvador, was granted withholding of removal in 20 19, which prohibited his removal to El Salvador. The record reflects that Abrego Garcia was apprehended in Maryland without legal basis on March 12, 2025, and, without further process or legal justification, was removed to El Salvador by March 15, 2025. Abrego Garcia is detained in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo or "CECOT"). Plaintiffs contend that his removal violated 8 U .S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) and its implementing regulations, as well as the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and other applicable legal protections.

Based on the record before the Court, I find that this Court retains subject matter jurisdiction. I further find that: (1) Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), and without any legal process; (2) his continued presence in El Salvador, for obvious reasons, constitutes irreparable harm; (3) the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of returning him to the United States; and (4) issuance of a preliminary injunction without further delay is necessary to restore him to the status quo and to avoid ongoing irreparable harm resulting from Abrego Garcia's unlawful removal. For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby DIRECTS Defendants to return Abrego Garcia to the United States no later than 11:59 PM on April 7th, 2025. A memorandum opinion further setting forth the basis for this ruling will be issued in due course.

Accordingly, it is this 4th day of April, 2025, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion (ECF No. 6), construed as one for preliminary injunctive relief, is GRANTED;

2. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025;

3. This preliminary relief is issued to restore the status quo and to preserve Abrego Garcia's access to due process in accordance with the Constitution and governing immigration statutes;

4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TRANSMIT copies of this Order to the parties.

Paula Xinis
United States District Judge

[admin]

MASSIVE Protests Take USA BY STORM…Trump’s NIGHTMARE!!
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch
Apr 6, 2025 The MeidasTouch Podcast

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the massive “Hands Off Protests” accross the United States and the world.



Transcript

Hey hey ho ho
Trump and Musk have got to go
Hey hey ho ho
Trump and Musk have got to go
Hey hey ho ho
Trump and Musk have got to go
Hey hey ho ho
Trump and Musk have got to go

[Ben Meiselas] Americans are fed up. The Hands-off
protests on Saturday took the nation by
storm. Thousands of protests in cities
and towns, in states, across the United
States of America, and internationally as
well. Millions of people in the aggregate
were out there protesting in different
cities. We saw hundreds of thousands of
people. And these numbers are only going
to grow as we head into Democracy Summer.
Now the Meidas Touch Network was there
broadcasting all of it. We partnered with
Move On, and some of the other grassroots
organizations, who were leading the
protests. What you saw at the beginning
of this video was part of our coverage
that was from the New York protests. What
I want to do on this video is highlight
some of the protests that were taking
place across the country and the world. I
also want to share with you what our
correspondent Aaron Parnas was seeing on
the ground in Washington DC, as he was
interviewing some of the top Democratic
leaders for the Meidas Touch Network.

All right, let's take a look at Boston where
there were over 100,000 people
protesting. I want to show you what that
scene looked like. Let's play it.

[Speaker] I'm the president and CEO of the
Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts.

[Crowd] Screams assent.

[Speaker] Thank you for being part of the
resistance.

[Crowd] Screams assent.

Now I want to show you the massive,
massive protest that was taking place in
downtown Chicago as part of the Hands-Off
movement. Let's play the clip.

[Crowd] Yelling.

Now just so you see here as well, and
credit to Marco Foster for putting a lot
of these together, and aggregating it
from groups like Our Revolution, this is
an aerial view of the massive protest
taking place in New York City yesterday
as part of the Hands-off rally
against Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Just
look at how massive it actually was in
size. Play this clip.

[Crowd] Chanting.

And here is the massive crowd that
continued to grow yesterday at the
National Mall in Washington DC for the
Hands-off rally against Musk and Trump.
Let's play the clip.

We had Meidas touch correspondent and Tik
Tok superstar Aaron Parnas in Washington
DC embedded in the protest yesterday.
Here's what he had to say earlier on as
the numbers continued to grow. When he
was there there was 50,000 100,000. I think the
full count in DC is going to be
significantly higher. But this was
yesterday when Parnas was there. Let's
play it.

[Aaron Parnas] I am here right now at the
massive anti-Trump, anti-Musk protest
happening right behind me. We're at the
national monument. Look at this. Let me
show you the scenes right now.

[Crowd] We have people power. We have the power.



[Aaron Parnas] Look, it's only
about 11:15. There are
several thousand people here. They're
expecting a lot more. And they're
covering most of the National Monument,
the Washington Monument on National Mall.
People go far far back over there.



Now allegedly we're expecting a number
of speakers, from Congressman Jamie
Raskin, Congressman Maxwell Frost, and
many more. So I'll see what I can cover.
But right now it's just several thousand
people across the DMV area protesting
Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Let me know
if you want to see something specific because
I'm happy to interview anyone. I'm happy
to talk to anyone. So we'll see what
happens. But I'm out here. If you're out
here let me know, and follow along. I'll
do a full breakdown on my Substack, like
I always do, on my Linked-in bio at the top
of the link tree. So stay tuned.

[Ben Meiselas] Parnas then had the opportunity to interview
Democratic Congressmember Jamie Raskin.
Let me show you what went down. Let's
play it.

[Aaron Parnas] I'm here with Congressman Jamie
Raskin from Maryland. Now Congressman, why
did you choose to come to this protest,
and why is it so impactful in this
moment right now?

[Jamie Raskin] Well, my congressional
district is in Maryland, and it borders
Washington DC. So we have tens of
thousands of people from Maryland who've
come down here. So this is the one that I
did, even though I was in Florida
actually with Maxwell Frost for the rest
of the weekend. So this demonstration
across the country, with more than a
thousand different protests,
is going to further catalyze popular
resistance and opposition to this
deranged program that they're imposing
on the country.

[Aaron Parnas] Now a lot of folks are
concerned, right? A lot of
people have told me that they're being
fired, especially at the IRS right now.
What's your message to those who have
been terminated at the federal
government, and how can they fight
back? What can they do in this moment
right now?

[Jamie Raskin] I'm sorry, I missed that.

[Aaron Parnas] Yeah, no worries. Um, a lot of
folks are worried. They're
being terminated right now at the
federal government, and they
want to know what they can do. What's
their future? So what's your message?

[Jamie Raskin] Well, first of all, we are winning in the courts. Like
for example, they fired tens of thousands
of probationary employees, which was
completely lawless. And so they've been
restored theoretically to their jobs, but
they're not letting them go back to work.
They are giving them pay, but they're not
having them do their jobs ,which is
absurd. But we're going to fight for
them to get their jobs back. And then
we are going to make sure that people
who've lost their jobs, who can't get
their jobs back, are part of this
movement against authoritarianism in the
country.

[Aaron Parnas] Congressman, thank you so very much.

[Ben Meiselas] Now I just want to also go back and
share with you the massive scope of that
Boston event Take a look right here the
aerial view of the massive protest in
Boston yesterday This was incredible You
see how many people were there the
official count was around 100,000 And I
I think it's actually more than that Um
when I think that's a conservative
estimate Um let me show you this right
here This was also from the hands-off
protest Senator Cy Booker joining a
hands-off protest in Montlair New Jersey
with a message for us all We achieved
great things in this country because
average citizens stood up and said
enough is enough And this is one of
those moments Play this clip
We achieved every great thing in this
country because average citizens stood
up and said enough is enough They banded
together and bonded together across
differences across gender race and even
party and said it's time we might to
bend the arc of the moral universe more
towards justice
[Applause]
And so what I'm seeing now is outrageous
And I'm hope we all are outraged
But it's time to turn our anger into
action
our worry into work It's time to turn
our fear into fight
because we have seen these kind of
fights before and we won Take a look at
another one of these huge protests
taking place in Kansas City Missouri
yesterday Play the
[Music]
clip Also massive protests in Salt Lake
City Utah Let's play it Our own children
Thisecially includes the rights of women
for the complete rights of their economy
Now here was a huge crowd that gathered
in Denver Colorado yesterday Let's play
it
Children who were segregating in their
school And here were protesters marching
in Charlotte North Carolina as part of
the hands-off movement again in thousands
of cities and towns across the United
States Let's play it
USA
[Applause]
In Washington DC Congress member Eric
Swalwell delivered a speech in front of
the huge crowd right there Let me show
you what went down Let's play it Because
as you stand here right now we have gone
from a Trump slump to a Trump train
wreck
We are going into a red
recession Our 401ks are
2011ks Our costs at Walmart and Home
Depot and Target where four out of five
of the things we buy are from overseas
are going up And where is Donald Trump
he's golfing
So to Donald Trump I say get your ass
off the golf course and face the people
And here's Congress member Eric
Swalwell again Let's play
[Applause]
it This is what kicking the out of
fascism looks
like This is what it looks like
We've seen a lot of Democratic Congress
member Jamie Raskin also gave an
incredible speech in Washington DC Let
me play that clip for you as well It
gave us the right to speak freely to
publish freely to worship freely to
assemble freely and to petition
government for a redress of grievances
[Applause]
As Dr King said "We've got the right to
protest for what is right without being
arrested deported or fired
We got the right to read the books we
want
including 1984 in The Handmaid's Tale
even if they now belong in the
non-fiction section
We've even got the right to call the
president deranged for crashing our
economy destroying $6 trillion of wealth
and turning my 401k into a 2011 Want to
highlight some great signs that we saw
at the protest yesterday We saw a sign
like this in uh Callispel Montana IKEA
has better cabinets Uh here's another
great one in Illinois They are eating
the checks They are eating the balances
Uh here's another one People dressed up
as penguins because Donald Trump's
regime tariffed penguins uh for 10 uh
10% tariffs on penguins The penguin
showed up to protest at a hands-off event
and they had the photo of Donald Trump
the portrait that Trump hated in the
from the Colorado State House and it
says traitor and chief Another A+
protest sign at a hands-off protest in
Rockford Illinois It says pretend where
Melania Donalds off Some other great
photos and protest signs of Donald Trump
and Putin Here's Donald Trump the
complete and total
slob Another very creative sign of
Donald Trump as a little baby Uh here's
one that says we are not
okay One says Trump's a little b- word
Then there's another poster that has a
photo of President Zalinsky It says not
a dictator A photo of Putin that says
dictator A photo of J D advance that
says dick and a photo of Donald Trump
all in the same poster that says traitor
Uh here's another one another great sign
want to share with you Hunk if you've
never drunk texted war plans Uh here uh
a grandma uh had a sign that said I'd
call Trump a cword but he lacks depth
and warmth Um so a lot of signs like
that We don't really curse here on the
Midas touch network till but uh want to
highlight what some of those signs are
Um let me just share with you some of
the other protests um where we were
either tagged in or um you know or or
there were so many So if I didn't c
capture your city I may have done it in
an earlier video um the ones I did
yesterday but I'm I'm going to do my
best to highlight some of these protests
like this one in Helena Montana People
coming out in Montana in Gurnie Illinois
A lot of people coming out Callispel
Montana Loads of protesters in San Diego
Omaha Nebraska What's up fresno
California which actually went Trump in
this last election Uh lots of protesters
there In Las Vegas Nevada protesters are
showing up in force Uh this was in
Austin Texas uh where Democratic House
Representative Greg Casar made an
appearance And here's what he had to say
Let's play this clip
I love you guys
Fire who elon Musk Fire who elon Musk Fire
who elon Musk Fire who elon Musk Keep up the
pressure and I promise you we will do it
Thank you'all very much Protesters in
Rockford Illinois Protesters in Sou
Falls South Dakota In Hawaii This was an
interesting one from Philip Gorvich from
a writer from the New Yorker responding
to more nommen I've never seen anything
like this in New York City Fifth Avenue
covered from 42nd Street well to the 20s
Nobody prepared for this volume
Volunteers are holding the traffic on
all the side streets No police in sight
Philip Gorvich then responds I asked one
high-ranking policeman I saw on Fifth
Avenue why there were so few police He
said quote "We did not expect anything
like this Don't tell anyone but I've
only got 44 officers out there and it's
a great crowd no event incidents which I
think is very important." These were
peaceful protests Peaceful protests
across the country Despite there being
peaceful protests Elon Musk was calling
for uh the arrest of people uh and
threatening people as these protests are
growing Clearly Elon Musk and Donald
Trump very very scared about the size
and scope and growing uh nature of these
protests Go to place like San Louis abyo
California 10,000 people showed up there
in San Louis a bispo Harrisburg
Pennsylvania handsoff protest Um Mon
Georgia huge protests there Asheville
North Carolina Illinois state capital
Akran Ohio Iceland Um we had lots of
people dressed up whether they were in
New Hampshire other areas in the New
England region wearing the Midas gear
and showing up with Midas gear Huge
turnout in Houston as well I mean folks
people were out and about with force Try
to show you some other ones right here
Uh Atlanta what's up pennsylvania
Lancaster what's up pronouncing it right
this time Duth Minnesota what's up
asheville North Carolina Columbus Ohio
Portland Maine Cincinnati Ohio Uh going
internationally London There were also
protests in Canada Concord New Hampshire
Uh Richmond I could keep going on and on
and on I'm sorry if I missed your
protest
Sorry if I missed it but I can't have
this video go on forever Um but we are
going to cover all this stuff here at
the Midas Touch Network Now you may
recall the recent article that Vanity
Fair wrote about the Midas Touch Network
And here's what the title was This was
from March 13 2025 The Trump resistance
won't be televised It'll be on Midas
Touch The progressive network is
thriving in a second Trump term recently
dethroning Joe Rogan and becoming a
destination for uh prominent Democrats
The resistance will be on Midas touch
We've made this such an important point
of ours as we grow this network to make
sure that we have these rallies on We
knew corporate news was not going to
cover it and or the way they should be
covering it And now that we had this
huge platform it was vital for us to
share it with you and show you it This
is what Elon Musk posted by the way He
responded to this account Amuse
Soros-funded Indivisible is admitting
they are behind the 1300 paid protests
happening today in all 50 states
Democratic billionaires are funding
uprisings and they should be held
legally accountable for violence Musk
responds "They will be." Folks these
were peaceful protests Unlike Musk and
Donald Trump who are destroying the
lives of veterans destroying Social
Security and Medicaid as we responded on
the Midas Touch account keep downplaying
the protests at your own peril Elon and
Donald Keep threatening Americans The
protests will only get bigger Trump is
hated Musk is hated The political winds
have shifted People are fed up This is
only the beginning I'm Ben Meiselas from
the Midas Touch Network Great work to
all of the organizers of the protest
Everybody who showed up Loved all the
people wearing the Midas gear as well
These protests will continue to grow in
times that are certainly filled with
doom and gloom news as Donald Trump and
Elon Musk and the regime continue to
take a wrecking ball to the United
States of America and the world It is
great to see people rising up People
will rise up People will take back our
freedoms I'm Ben Meiselas. This is the
Meidas Touch Network

[admin]

Trump has DISASTER Monday AM as SHOCK SETS IN
MeidasTouch
Apr 7, 2025 The MeidasTouch Podcast

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the completely chaotic Monday morning in the markets, in the United States, and throughout the world, inflicted by Donald Trump’s irrational and despicable behavior.



Donald Trump returned to Washington DC
it was absolute chaos and mayhem this
morning initially the markets open and
started to uh tank more than we've
really ever seen in modern history then
there was some unfounded rumor that
Donald Trump was going to be pausing the
tariffs for a 90-day period the stock
market then shot up very quickly then
the Trump rapid response team said fake
news and then the market began to crash
again you know normally on these videos
I would put up where the market is but
right now it is going down up down up
the volatility is uh so um uh
unprecedented in its nature not the way
a stable market is supposed to look i
don't want to even share it because in 5
10 minutes after I post this video or a
half hour after it's posted it may look
entirely different suffice to say I
think to be a responsible reporter in
this moment I need to say it is just
absolutely chaotic with volatility like
we've never seen before when I have a
bigger snapshot I'll of course report on
what that is but I don't want to in this
moment in any way cause signals that
could uh be problematic in any way but
let me just share with you what happened
as we all woke up to uh the opening of
the market it officially became the
worst 3-day performance of the S&P 500
since October of 1987 with the S&P
falling more than 20% from its February
closing high on pace to confirm a bare
market here was the moment where there
was this unfounded rumor um about this
90-day tariff pause to which the Trump
response team said wrong fake news um
you'll see here this account unusual
whales which uh covers the market says
this is absolute comedy i wouldn't
really refer to it as that the market
was blood red today then an unattributed
rumor was starting on X that there was
consideration of a 90-day tariff pause
the market turned green then five
minutes later the White House denied the
rumor the market became red again then
Donald Trump posted that he was going to
uh impose additional tariffs on China
and not have any further discussions
with China would basically mean if you
add up all the tariffs on China over
100%
donald Trump posted yesterday China
issued retaliatory tariffs of 34% on top
of their already sec set record setting
tariffs non-monetary tariffs illegal
subsidization of companies and it goes
on and on and on and then it says
"Therefore if China does not withdraw
its 34% increase above their already
long-term trading abuses by tomorrow
April 8th 2025 the United States will
impose additional tariffs on China of
50% effective April 9th additionally all
talks with China concerning their
requested meetings with us will be
terminated negotiations with other
countries which have also requested
meetings will begin taking place
immediately thank you for your attention
to this matter this would bring the
tariffs to China above 100% um you see
right here this cartoon i always think
these political cartoons encapsulate the
moment trump on Fifth Avenue uh shooting
the uh economy uh also as Axios reported
over the past few days you know all of
and we talked about this when the Trump
tariffs were initially announced which
he calls liberation day we refer to it
as recession day annihilation day great
depression day uh liquidation day you
pick your name um the Trump tariffs were
based on a massive error in just the
underlying formulation and what uh Axios
went on to report is how this uh
conservative think tank shows that uh
the formula that was applied was
incorrectly applied um and also we've as
we've said before the tariffs are not
reciprocal despite the Trump regime
referring to these as reciprocal tariffs
he kind of made up uh the uh the numbers
that he claimed were the tariff rates
against the United States based upon the
deficit with specific countries so a
country like Vietnam when you calculated
the deficit they would Trump would
include kind of the delta and the
deficit as part of what he considered to
be uh a tariff against the United States
so countries like Vietnam and Cambodia
and others you know would be viewed as
being high tariff uh rates against the
United States even though the US was
getting cheap products from those uh
countries um uh Orange Monday is the new
Black Monday that's at least when the
markets were uh opening you may be
seeing billboards like this across the
United States that are uh being paid for
by Canada and others uh tariffs are
attacks at the gas pump tariffs are
indeed attacks that's what they are
tariffs are taxes on the American
consumer the American consumer is
ultimately going to be the one to pay
for this and the American consumer is
paying this volatility
uh the uh hit that our 401ks and
retirements have been taking this is not
the way the markets are supposed to work
at all and uh you can tell even here
like when you've lost your CNBC MAGA
host this is the CNBC MAGA host right
here and you'll just see that you know
they're pissed play this clip and and I
think from policy institutes on both
sides of the aisle the the methodology
that was used has been universally
derided as being
non-serious i don't know whether you
know exactly who came up with the
formula uh but it allowed you to to at
least characterize most of these
countries as being their terrorists well
above the reality of the situation so
that when you put say that we're going
to do half on them uh it was much higher
than anyone anticipated and I think
you'd have to concede that that this was
not the market reaction you were looking
for there's a way of maybe incrementally
trying to accomplish some of the things
that the the president wants to do in a
reasonable serious way and this just
almost across the board has caused what
you're seeing in the stock market and a
lot of headscratching and head shaking
on whether anyone really knows what
they're doing in this case peter can you
acknowledge that sure no I can't because
here's here's what I'm saying you're
throwing a lot of stuff at me first of
all the methodology was perfectly sound
it was done by the Council of Economic
Advisors based on long-term studies that
are in the academic literature and the
people taking pot shots at us are the
same people that always take pot shots
american Enterprise Institute peter
of course the Joe come on the American
Enterprise Institute so then you had uh
Kevin Hasset Donald Trump's top economic
adviser uh was going on Fox you see the
market there on the right at least that
was the snapshot in time then here uh
Kevin Hasset uh talks about he's being
asked about a pause on the 90-day
tariffs um here's what he says play this
clip will you do a 90-day pause would
you consider that or Bill yeah you know
I I think that the president is going to
decide what the president's going to
decide there are more than 50 countries
in negotiation with the president we've
got the prime minister of Israel coming
today we've had a reach out overnight
from Taiwan and uh but I but I would
urge everyone especially Bill to ease
the ease off the rhetoric a little bit
the fact is that uh uh say 10% baseline
tariff is uh on what 14% of GDP that's
about how much trade we have how many
imports and so 86% of GDP is affected by
the deregulation and the tax cuts and
everything else and even if you think
and and I think a lot of us at the White
House think that these are uh these
economic responses are exaggerated by
critics even if you think that there
will be some negative effect from the
trade side that's still a small share of
GDP and so the idea that it's going to
be a nuclear winter or something like
that is completely irresponsible
rhetoric so and it was based on that
where he didn't say that there would be
a pause on the 90-day tariffs that's
that it was incorrectly erroneously
reported that there was a pause which
was just false false information um uh
take a look did you watch uh 60 Minutes
recently um 60 Minutes found that there
was no criminal record for 75% of the
Venezuelan migrants the US sent to El
Salvador yes 75% we've been highlighting
a lot of those stories here on the Midas
Touch Network people who just had autism
awareness tattoos or people who had
tattoos of uh Real Madrid a soccer club
or
um this story particularly is is of
significance today as there was a major
ruling by the fourth cir by the fourth
circuit court of appeals brago Garcia
the Maryland man migrant uh who in 2019
an immigration judge during the Trump
administration said that he had a
protected status here and could not be
sent to El Salvador no criminal history
at all never committed a crime working
in Maryland would check into ICE uh
regularly um the Trump regime kidnapped
him sent him to the El Salvador
concentration camp the fir the fourth
circuit court of appeals ordered that he
be uh immediate confirm the district
court order saying you need to return
him immediately by midnight uh Donald
Trump uh is appealing the fourth circuit
uh ruling to the Supreme Court it was a
particularly powerful ruling by the f by
the fourth circuit court of appeals
affirming what the district court said
get this guy back to the United States
he had protected status he's not a
criminal you can't kidnap people and
send him to concentration camps this is
the ruling from the fourth circuit from
the fourth circuit court of appeals it
says the following the panel unanimously
agrees that the district court's order
requiring the government to facilitate
and effectuate the return of plaintiff
Kilmore Armando Abrego Garcia to the
United States by no later than 11:59 p.m
on Monday April 7th 2025 should not be
stayed the government's motion to stay
is therefore denied i write to explain
my view the United States government has
no legal authority to snatch a person
who is lawfully present in the United
States off the street and remove him
from the country without due process the
government's contention otherwise and
its argument that the federal courts are
powerless to intervene are
unconscionable donald Trump immediately
appealed that to the Supreme Court
that's where we stand right now i'll
give you more updates of course as I get
more data thanks for watching and hit
subscribe

[admin]

Trump has AWFUL MORNING as THIRD Judge STRIKES HIM DOWN
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
Apr 7, 2025 The Intersection with Popok

A Federal Judge that MAGA would like to Impeach has just ruled that the Trump Administration is "covertly punishing" Blue States and their voters by cutting off FEMA natural disaster relief funding Congress allocated to help Americans who are suffering because they live in states that won't cooperate with his illegal immigration policies. Popok reports that this is the THIRD time in a single day a federal judge has ruled that the Trump Administration has committed an "illegal act", is acting in "bad faith," and or is in contempt for violating a federal court order.



Transcript

for the third time on the same day
another federal judge this time up in
Rhode Island who's been the subject of
an impeachment attempt by MAGA in
Congress Judge McConnell has ruled that
the Trump administration is openly and
defiantly violating his preliminary
injunction to turn on the funding and
send back money through FEMA to
suffering Americans in 19 states who
happen to live in states headed by uh
Democrats That's all the only other way
to put it Trump wants to kill Democrats
Doesn't care about their suffering He
said he was going to be the unifier He
said he was going to bring the country
together but all he's doing through his
agencies like uh FEMA and through his
agencies like Homeland Security is he's
harming Americans cutting off hundreds
of millions of dollars of funding they
need to uh recover from natural
disasters like wildfires and floods and
mudslides and hurricanes and the rest
and their only their only um crime these
these uh citizens these fellow Americans
is that they live in states that aren't
willingly cooperating with Donald
Trump's inhumane and unconstitutional
immigration policy It's just a way to
punish them for being what Donald Trump
terify calls sanctuary cities or
sanctuary states I'm Michael Popac
You're here on Legal AF Let me get to
the bottom of the new ruling by Judge
McConnell It follows closely on the
heels of two other rulings all on the
same day
um uh late on Friday over the weekend in
which courts have found that Trump and
the administration are in defiance of
court orders are uh close to being found
in contempt for being in bad faith andor
have committed illegal acts Got three
different judges in three different
locations The only thing they have in
common is well they're federal judges
but to the Republicans and MAGA they're
they were democratically appointed
You've got Judge McConnell in Rhode
Island I'll talk about at length Now you
got Judge Zenis in Maryland concerning
the Obreo Garcia
illegal uh kidnapping deportation
without notice or due process to El
Salvador case in which the Department of
Justice had to admit that they violated
the law and that led to the firing of
the Department of Justice lawyer who
just his only crime was telling the
truth And Judge Boseberg on the same day
ruled that the Trump administration is
likely in contempt for having violated
his orders grounding the planes to stop
the continued deportation under an
unconstitutional exercise of the Alien
Enemies Act Now back to McConnell
McConnell had a case in front of him
within about 10 days after the Trump
administration in which they try to turn
off the spigots of FEMA money If any
agency should be considered bipartisan
if any agency should be considered red
white and blue and not red or blue you'd
think it'd be FEMA right Not under
Donald Trump It's money to the blue
people And we don't I feel like like the
blue man group It's money to the blues
and we can't allow that because they're
not playing ball with Christine and and
Tom H woman about my deportation
programs and they want to you know not
uh cooperate with our you know illegal
unconstitutional without due process
deportations So let's pay him back by
not letting people rebuild their houses
or letting people live in um homeless
shelters uh who have lost everything
That's that's that's a good way Remember
this at voting time Even if you're not
in those blue states the fact that you
support a government and a president
that would victimize and penalize fellow
Americans who are suffering if that's
not a disqualifier for you you're living
in the wrong America as far as I'm
concerned Let me read to you from the
order from the judge How we got here is
January 31st 2025 right off the
administration and the first wave of
executive orders Donald Trump issued one
about invasions phony invasions You know
we're suddenly at war with people we
can't even see or countries that aren't
at we're not at war with as a phony way
to cut off funding And he cut off
hundreds of millions of dollars of
funding through FEMA as a result They
said "We're just doing a manual review
for controls and to make sure there's no
fraud There's no fraud in FEMA And if
there is fraud in FEMA it is caught by
Inspector General's Inspectors General
and the money is returned." There was
fraud in the PPP loan program under
COVID but they they went and prosecuted
all those people and brought back a
billion
dollars uh billions of dollars Here's
what the judge said Basically on page
four I issued a temporary restraining
order The temporary restraining order
which is the first level on the food
chain of
injunctions enjoying the defendants Now
every time I say defendants just hear
Trump administration from pausing
freezing impeding blocking cancelling or
terminating defendants compliance with
awards and obligations to provide
federal financial assistance to the
states They shall not impede the awards
Now remember these these grants are
granted by Congress And Donald Trump is
is putting up he's like a beaver putting
up a dam to block the flow of water
approved by Congress He's supposed to be
faithfully executing the laws He's
supposed to be taking care to faithfully
execute the laws under the Constitution
He doesn't make law He's supposed to be
executing That's the executive branch
But Donald Trump figured out "No I can
kind of make my own policy by turning
off funding." And the judge not happy
about it So the TTRO gets in place The
states come back to the judge Judge
McConnell in Rhode Island and say "Judge
they're not complying." And the judge
agrees with them and issues another
order Then he moves the temporary
restraining order up to a preliminary
injunction Around that time MAGA lost
their mind and started moving for
articles of impeachment of federal
judges because they're doing their job
They're doing their job under our
co-equal branches of government checks I
don't know how MAGA Congress people who
you know didn't either go to school or
are too smart by half I don't know how
they think checks in balance works How
how do they I would love them to tell me
how do you think the federal court is
supposed to check and balance against
the executive branch unless they do it
by court rulings in interpreting whether
the executive branch is operating
properly within statutory mandates law
congressional law or the constitution I
I What do you think it looks like if
it's not a federal judge reviewing the
words of a statute the words of a con of
the Constitution applying it to a a
executive branch act and declaring
whether it's illegal or not What do you
I just would love them to and if you're
on here with me go down in comments tell
me what checks and balances if it's not
that and why is doing their job why is
that now the subject of an impeachment
proceeding So McConnell along with
others and I won't bore you with the
names of the other judges are some
they're not going to get
impeached There's been 15 judges in 250
years who have been impeached and
removed and they all all because of
bribery not because they were doing
their job Yeah And it's and it and right
after that round of impeachment articles
including Boseberg remember Chief
Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court
said stop with the impeachment talk You
got a problem with a case you take an
appeal You don't like a ruling you
appeal it you don't impeach back off
pump the brakes And and uh it sort of
died a slow death there So
um the judge then says on page six over
to to seven and eight effectively but
what he is observing in the evidence is
that the Trump administration is
covertly they're saying they're doing an
administrative review to install
controls manual got to just make sure
the checks are going out but all they're
doing is using that as an excuse and a
cover up and a and flying the false flag
of we're doing a fraud review to cut off
funding to states they don't like
because of their immigration policy or
because they're not supporting the Trump
administration policy Right This is very
similar by the way to Trump cutting a
deal with the with soon to be outgoing
Mayor Adams in New York they didn't like
his sanctuary city um positioning And
because they had him by the balls
because he had a federal criminal
indictment for bribery under the Biden
administration they said "Yeah you see
this We'll give you we'll dismiss your
indictment but play ball on sanctuary
cities Of course New York didn't like
being in the middle of all that And he's
not going to win re-election but that's
for another time But you see how Donald
Trump plays hard ball Grab Grab the
corrupt politician as indicted hold him
by the balls make squeeze until he
squeals and then release when he agrees
to abide by immigration policy Same
thing here I mean Donald Trump is has a
very public battle right now going on
with the governor of Rhode Island where
you know he's effectively told her to go
f herself She's told him to go f himself
and he's cut off funding as a result
Another problem Here's what the judge
said Page seven the states have
presented undisputed evidence that this
processing of awards has yet to come And
then the judge lists all the all the
states that got effed by Donald Trump
Hawaii for for $6 million Oregon for
$130 million Colorado for $33 million
and then all the other states Arizona
California Colorado Hawaii Illinois
Maine Maryland Michigan New Jersey New
York Vermont Washington Wisconsin who
have had their funds frozen By the way
some of those states Donald Trump won or
there' been kind of a tossup Remember
that Arizona he tried to cut the balls
out from under you and and hurt your
people Wisconsin too you went as one of
the uh seven battleground states in his
favor Really This is what you supported
having your suffering people be hurt
more by the president of the United
States Um this is what the judge finally
ruled on page 10 In any event the states
have presented evidence that strongly
suggests that FEMA is implementing this
manual review process this
review process covertly That's a polite
way of saying um that's a lie On the
president's January 20th 2025 protecting
the America against
invasions executive order which provides
that the director of homeland security
shall evaluate and undertake lawful
action to make sure that sanctuary
jurisdictions states do not receive
federal funding Even though they say
it's they're not they're not that's not
the reason they cut it off The judge
says there's substantial evidence that
is exactly the reason that they've cut
it off If they were smart which the
administration is not and will never be
accused of being smart they would have
cut off funding to a couple of MAGA
states and then they could have said
"Well see I mean you know we cut off
Georgia we cut off Florida." Now they
didn't And that's the problem So the
judge has now ordered on page 14 that
throughout the duration of the
preliminary injunction FEMA must
immediately start funding
again must immediately comply with the
plain text of the preliminary injunction
order not to pause or impede
dispersements and must give notice to
everybody in FEMA who is responsible
about this order come back and tell the
judge who's been notified That's Judge
McConnell right So at the same time we
got Judge Zenison Maryland who on Friday
ruled or on Saturday ruled that the uh
Trump administration had committed a
legal act by deporting this Mr Obago
Garcia from the parking lot of a Home
Depot or IKEA wherever he was waiting
for work with a green card in a
sanctuary order of protection by an
administrative law judge a federal judge
That's an illegal act same time just
down the street in DC Judge Boseberg's
about to hold the Trump administration
in contempt for violating his order to
ground those planes and not fly them for
a violation of the illegal
unconstitutional exercise of war powers
by Donald Trump Now you got Judge
McConnell um up in Rhode Island saying
"You violated my order and you better
you better you better knock it off
because the next step for McConnell is
going to be contempt." And I'm and he's
not worried about impeachment and he's
not worried about any of this stuff And
neither are self-respecting federal
judges They are the last firewall to
protect America from an outofcrol
presidency since Congress is not going
to do it The the the the limp noodle
right of Congress controlled by MAGA at
present is not going to do it You want
control over this president You want
checks and
balance Then give the House and the
Senate back to the Democrats at the
midterms Give me the House and the
Senate Whether we do impeachment and
conviction I don't know But give me
checks and balance at the Congress level
which is what the founding the framers
wanted with the three co-equal branches
of government Right now the heavy lift
is all on the federal courts and they're
being attacked as we know by Donald
Trump and by MAGA I'll continue to
follow it right here Come back for the
next reporting only on Legal AF I'm
Michael Popac I'm Michael Popac and I
got some big news for our audience Most
of you know me as the co-founder of
Midas Touches Legal AF and the Legal AF
YouTube channel or as a 35-year national
trial lawyer Now building a what we
started together on Legal AF I've
launched a new law firm the Pope Firm
dedicated to obtaining justice through
compassionate and zealous legal
representation At the Popo firm we are
focused on obtaining justice for those
who have been injured or damaged by a
lifealtering event by securing the
highest dollar recoveries I've been
tirelessly fighting for justice for the
last 35 years So my own law firm
organically building on my legal AF work
just feels right And I've handpicked a
team of top tier trial fighters and
settlement experts throughout all 50
states known as big auto injury
attorneys who have the knowhow to beat
heartless insurance companies
corporations government entities and
their attorneys Big Autos attorneys
working with my firm are rock stars in
their respective states and collectively
responsible for billions of dollars in
recoveries So if you or a loved one have
been on the wrong side of a catastrophic
auto motor vehicle ride share or truck
accident suffered a personal injury or
been the victim of medical malpractice
employment harassment or discrimination
or suffered a violation of your civil
and constitutional rights then contact
the Pope Firm today at 1877 Popac AF or
by visiting my website at
http://www.thepopfirm.com and fill out a free
case evaluation form And if we determine
that you have a case and you sign with
us we don't get paid unless you do The
Popo firm fighting for your justice
every step of the way.

[admin]

Trump CAN'T STOP Losing and RUNS to SCOTUS for COVER
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
Apr 7, 2025 The Intersection with Popok

Knowing he would lose at the 4th Circuit, Trump has immediately filed an application begging the Supreme Court to bail him out and not force him to retrieve by midnight tonight Mr. Abrego Garcia, a green-card holder under an order of protection who was deported to the jails of El Salvador by an admitted "error." Popok explains how the brief, filed by Trump's former criminal defense lawyer and now US Solicitor General, is a scathing attack on the federal judiciary and purposely claims that Mr. Garcia is a member of a terrorist gang as justification, as we wait to see what Chief Justice Roberts does next with the request.



Transcript

well when your former criminal defense
lawyer is now the US solicitor general
what are you going to get when Donald
Trump files an emergency application to
block a judge's order that he return
from a El Salvadoran jail somebody that
they wrongfully deported as an illegal
act you're going to get an attack on the
federal judiciary what else to expect
from John Sauer our solicitor general
i've got the new filing in my hand this
is a fastmoving story this is Monday at
about 1:30 or so i expect we're going to
see Chief Justice Roberts likely enter
an administrative stay but the
underlying issues which a judge just
earlier this morning at the Fourth
Circuit said that the Trump
administration's position that they
don't want to get back Mr abrego Garcia
they won't get him back even though they
violated his rights in a court's order
because they don't want to be forced to
do it shocks the consciousness and is
unconscionable and instead John Sauer
leads off with an attack on Mr abrego
Garcia claiming that he is a member of a
narot terrorist gang when that has never
been proven in fact they can't even get
their story straight about whether he is
or is not part of a narot terrorist gang
all I know is a federal immigration
judge ordered that he never be removed
to El Salvador and that's exactly what
happened to him when he was shackled
without notice and due process from an
IKEA parking lot waiting to try to get a
job while his US citizen wife and
daughter young baby waited at home
that's exactly what happened it's pretty
clear or as one judge earlier this
morning put it it was a goof it was an
error they Somebody screwed up i agree
constitutionally somebody screwed up and
is now the time to be attacking federal
judges i'm Michael Pop you're on Legal
AF you're already here hit the blue
subscribe button help help build the
channel let's get into the order or the
application how'd we get here friday
Judge Zenis in Maryland Paula Zenis she
after hearing confessions from
Department of Justice attorneys who have
now been fired by the way in the form of
Mr ruveni Mr ruveni conceded as he has
to in his obligation to be candid to the
tribunal not lie said Mr of Garcia was
under an order preventing his removal to
El Salvador and we knew about the order
and yet we put him on the plane and I'm
not getting satisfactory answers from
the administration that led him to be
shown the door by his bosses the number
two lawyer at the Department of Justice
another criminal defense lawyer for
Donald Trump his name is uh Todd Blanch
uh which was uh quoted by the fourth
circuit earlier today so fri let me let
me back up friday um the judge rules
that the Trump administration violated
the rights of Mr abrego Garcia and with
and committed an illegal act as
confessed by the Department of Justice
lawyer she orders the return of Abrego
Garcia by today Monday before midnight
not out of custody let's be clear not to
release him and let him go spend time
with his family for dinner just to bring
him back to the US out of El Salvador
why is he in El Salvador because Donald
Trump signed a contract with the
government of El Salvador to pay them $6
million as a performative art piece to
take 200 people he claimed were a member
of a gang a narco terrorist gang from El
Salvador or from Venezuela okay well uh
that wasn't proven there was no notice
there was no due process it's
unconscionable it violates the fifth
amendment rights of people in this
country even if they're even if they're
undocumented and Abrego Garcia is
documented he's got a green card but not
to John Sauer to John Sauer he's a con
he's a convicted member of a terrorist
organization that's a lie that's not in
the record below and that's a lie and
then so after Judge Zennis makes that
order the Trump administration asked her
to stay her order so they can they don't
have to like comply with it and appeal
they took an appeal to the fourth
circuit court of appeal fourth which
sits over Maryland she denied on
Saturday this past Saturday the motion
for stay she said "You're going to lose
you admitted the illegal act you
violated the fifth amendment you haven't
demonstrated one shred of evidence that
you don't have the power through your
contractual and foreign negotiations to
get him back because you say "I don't
have jurisdiction." I do you say "I
can't review the acts of the president
in this area." I can you say that even
though you violated his his duties you
can't get him back you haven't shown me
that you can't get him back or that
you've even tried so no then it led to
an appeal to the fourth circuit court of
appeal that sits over Maryland they just
ruled this morning i mean this is how
fast this story is moving monday morning
I wake up 9:00 I start recording we've
got a three decision by the fourth
circuit court of appeals all three
judges right including one from Reagan
days one from Clinton days and one from
um and one from Obama days who
rules that the uh order that Judge
Zinnus entered is valid that it was
unconscionable what happened that he
needed to be returned immediately that
nobody had shown any proof that the
government can't bring him back and that
everybody admitted that he had an order
of protection stopping him from being
removed to El Salvador yet he was
removed to El Salvador seems to be a
pretty big a pretty big miss or as or as
Judge King put it it was somebody
screwed up yeah yeah it's a
constitutional screw-up Judge in any
event before waiting for the ruling
which came this morning when they didn't
get the ruling uh on on Friday when they
took the appeal they or they filed their
uh motion this actually this morning
kind of overlapping with the fourth
circuit ruling against them the Trump
administration through sour filed its
application to stay the fourth circuit's
decision but ultimately the decision of
the trial judge Judge Zinnis to demand a
brao Garcia gets back in the United
States not released from pop not
released from custody just back in the
United States by midnight tonight and
John Sauer wrote the brief again this is
the guy that won the case for Donald
Trump about immunity from criminal
prosecution for core con for core
constitutional powers that's where he
came from so he spends a fair amount of
time doing two things lying about Mr
abrego Garcia saying that he's a member
of a terrorist gang when that's never
been proven in in fact quite the
opposite in terms of the evidence in the
record he ignores the evidence in the
record which you're not supposed to do
and he also says in any event this is
just another example of outofcrol
federal judges issuing injunctions
against Donald Trump poor Donald Trump
the reason Donald Trump has more
injunctions against him than any other
president in the in an equal amount of
time is because he's the only one that's
tried to abuse power in such a short
amount of time even Franklin Delanor
Roosevelt with war powers didn't do this
so here's what here's what let me let's
go through the lies in the filing okay
this is on page on page one on Friday
afternoon a federal district judge
that's Judge Sennis ordered
unprecedented relief says Sour dictating
to the United States that it must not
only negotiate with a foreign country to
return an enemy alien on foreign soil
but also succeed by 11:59 tonight we
can't do it this is this tone this tone
of attack is very similar to Steven
Miller who works for Donald Trump in the
White House as his deputy chief of staff
saying "She's a Marxist judge she's a
Marxist judge and she's she thinks she's
the president of El Salvador no she
doesn't she just realizes that that the
the US has cut a deal with El Salvador
to offload and delegate its prison
population and should be able to get
them back and nobody has told her that
that can't be done and why that can't be
done pick up the phone Trump call on the
red phone the bat phone I don't know
what you call it call B Kelly in El
Salvador and get the guy out i don't
know why you're fighting this you're
fighting this because you're you're
you're depraved and inhumane that's why
you're fighting it let's continue then
Sour makes the extraordinary leap that's
nowhere in the record in fact it's the
opposite that the alien he calls him the
alien Yeah you mean Mr abrego Garcia
with a green card is no ordinary
individual but rather a member of a
designated foreign terrorist
organization MS-13 where is that in the
record in fact quite the
opposite
then they then he then turns to the
attack on the federal judiciary which he
does twice on page two even admits the
deluge of unlawful injunctions the order
is remarkable even respondents did ask
the court to free him the United States
cannot guarantee success in a sensitive
international negotiations in advance
least of all when a court imposes an
absurdly compressed mandatory deadline
that vastly complicates the give and
take of negotiations what eff anding
give and take you sent them to a place
you can't get them back from that's on
you that's more due process violation
not less that should screw you up at the
United States Supreme Court not be a not
be a point of u of uh
support
um they have to admit he finally admits
that the guy was illegally removed um
and then another attack on the federal
judiciary this time he tries to stick it
to Justice Kagan because two days ago
when the ruling came out five to four
for the Trump administration allowing
them to cut off funding to teacher
grants in inner city areas terrible uh
without notice in the middle of a school
year she was on the wrong end and she
said "Why are you doing this we got a
barebones record without full briefing
or a hearing and scarce time for
reflection." But she lost so sour says
in his brief citing Kagan you shouldn't
be doing this on a quote unquote
barebones briefing no argument and
scarce time for reflection there's been
full briefing there's been full argument
and a full record established i don't
know what he's talking about although
they felt like it was it was fun to like
roast Justice Kagan a little bit here's
what um he says though to attack the
federal judiciary much like all the
other political hacks around Donald
Trump this is page four in one respect
at least this order is nothing new it is
the latest in a litany of injunctions or
temporary restraining orders from the
same handful of district judges that uh
that demand immediate or near immediate
compliance on absurdly short deadlines
these orders virtually guarantee that
decisions on sensitive weighty and
vigorously disputed matters will not be
done
appropriately okay but then he can't
even get the story straight about
whether uh Abrego Garcia is or is not in
a terrorist organization and whether it
is part or is not part of the
proclamation of war that's a problem
here's what's going to happen off of
this filing that's why I wanted to get
on the air pretty quickly justice
Roberts is responsible for the Fourth
Circuit he can make it what's called an
administrative stay put administrative
stay in place he'll say and he's going
to do it because we got a a clock
ticking we're less than 11 hours away
from the deadline so I think in the next
two or three hours you're going to see
me back on this network back on this
channel telling you that there's been an
administrative stay i'd be let me put it
this way I'd be shocked if Justice
Roberts doesn't put an administrative
stay he'll say some nicities like "I'm
not ruling on the merits so I'm not
prejudging the case but we need more
time so we're going to block the order
of the judge." It doesn't mean that
they're not they're ultimately that
there's five votes to ultimately reverse
Judge Zennis that we have to see we know
there's four votes we'll talk about the
fifth vote got to count the five at the
Supreme Court but I think he's going to
issue that administrative stay just
given the timing just given the timer he
did it before when there was a a
midnight deadline related to $2 billion
of US aid being paid um by required by
Judge Ali in the DC court he gave an
administrative stay now ultimately he
and Amy Coney Barrett flipped over and
they sided with Judge Ali even though
they issued an administrative stay so
administrative stays aren't the
deathnell for democracy so get ready i
think he does the stay i think they give
a briefing deadline for the Obago Garcia
lawyers to issue their brief in
opposition to this application in the
next 2 or 3 days and then we sit back
and wait they could rule in a day a week
two weeks not at all by not ruling their
ruling if you know what I mean in the
meantime that stay will stay in place
and Alrego Garcia will stay in the deep
dark recesses of that supermax prison
that killer prison in Al Salvador that's
that's the human dimension here that's
never talked about i'm going to continue
to follow it all right here on Legal AF
follow me in this fastmoving story one
place at the intersection of law and
politics here on Legal AF the YouTube
channel till my next report I'm Michael
Popok

*********************************

Trump LOSES Appeal… Court DOUBLES DOWN on REVERSAL
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
4.65M subscribers
Apr 7, 2025

In breaking news, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the Trump Administration and ruled that they must bring Mr. Abrego Garcia illegally deported to El Salvador back before midnight tonight, with one judge ruling that the Trump Admin position is “unconscionable” as Trump files an immediate appeal to the US Supreme setting up yet another constitutional crisis caused by Trump. Michael Popok ties it all together.



Transcript

it must be Monday because Donald Trump
has suffered two losses at the appellate
court This time the fourth circuit court
of appeals three judge panel has ruled
to affirm the ruling of Judge Zennis in
Maryland that requires that Mr Abrego
Garcia who was illegally deported by the
Trump administration in a oops
administrative error despite the fact he
had an order to prevent his removal to
El Salvador because he'll get killed
there in place since 2019 and was a
green card holder Her order that
requires him to be returned on Monday
before midnight and her refusal to grant
a stay has been affirmed by a three
judge panel of the fourth uh the fourth
circuit that sits over Maryland with two
two judges which is interesting Judge
Thacker appointed by um Obama and Judge
King appointed a long time ago by Judge
uh by President Clinton having a little
bit of a battle but reaching the same
point that it shocks the conscience It
is unconscionable as Judge Thacker put
it for the Trump administration to take
the position that they can without due
process without notice in the middle of
the night kidnap somebody admit and
concede to an administrative error in
violation of an order and then throw up
their hands and say they can't get him
back despite the fact there's no
evidence that proves they can't get him
back And the even the president of El
Salvador where the prison is located has
said this is just a delegation of the
prison system They're just offloading
some of the US prison system to El
Salvador and they're paying for it That
sounds like you got control over the
ability to bring back Mr Abrego Garcia
So the court has refused to block the
mandatory injunction requiring by Judge
Zenis the return of Abrego Garcia by
Monday at midnight Come back here for
for updated reporting on that one And
now Donald Trump's going to have to try
to take an emergency application to the
United States Supreme Court and see what
happens next I'll cover it right here on
the Mightest Touch Network and on Legal
AF I did a recent hottake about the hot
water that a lawyer for the Department
of Justice Arez Roveni got because he
told the truth to the federal judge
Judge Zennus when she asked him "Were
you aware Was ICE Immigration and Custom
Enforcement for the Trump Administration
aware that Mr Uh Brago Garcia a father
married to a US citizen in Maryland a
green card holder was also the sub
subject of a uh removal order to prevent
his removal an asylum order if you will
from imigra immigration judge that
prevented him and prevented the attorney
general from de or the secretary of
state from deporting him to El Salvador
When he went to El Salvador were they
aware Yes your honor Okay that got Arez
Ruvvini in trouble because he just got
canned by the Department of Justice for
being insubordinate and not being a
zealous advocate for his client But you
can't force a lawyer to lie It's a
violation of the code of ethics You have
duty to the tribunal You have a duty of
cander to the tribunal You have to be
honest Yes you be have to be a zealous
advocate but the the limits of zealous
advocacy end where you have to lie And
they mentioned it at least Judge uh
Thacker mentioned it in her footnote Let
me let me start there and then we'll
work backwards into what the order is In
footnote 4 I knew this was going to show
up in somebody's order This is what the
judge Thacker wrote in her uh or her uh
opinion Three judge panel all three
voted in favor of not granting a stay to
block Judge Zennus' order requiring the
return today of ago Garcia But here's
what Judge Thcker took time to write Of
note in response to the candid response
by the government attorney that's
Ruveni to the district court's inquiry
that's Judge Zenis that attorney has
been put on administrative leave
ostensibly for lack of zealous advocacy
That term comes from the code of
professional responsibility that all
lawyers as officers of the court swear
an oath to Every lawyer even if you're
not a litigator trial lawyer like me if
you're a transactional lawyer when you
come out of law school and you want to
be a member of the bar so you can
practice law and charge your clients as
a lawyer you got to swear an oath that
you're going to uphold and you are bound
to uphold the code of professional
responsibility in your jurisdiction
Every one of it has the exact same from
the model code has the exact same
provision on cander to the tribunal
meaning fancy way of saying you can't
lie to the federal judge even if you
want to even if by not lying it hurts
your client You can't lie or you get
your license pulled So this is what
that's when we say zealous advocacy We
have an obligation to be zealous
advocates to to use our powers and do
everything we can within the facts and
the law and ethics and truthtelling
right and our adversarial process That's
how it works in our system of justice
but not to the point of lying Here's
what Judge Thacker continued after
citing to some uh New York Times cases
She says "But the duty of zealous
representation is tempered by the duty
of cander to the court among other
ethical obligations and the duty to
uphold the rule of law particularly on
the part of a government attorney."
United States Department of Justice
homepage In other words there's a
guideline The DOJ manual requires quote
um "Our employees adhere to the highest
standards of ethical behavior mindful
that as public servants we must work to
earn the trust of and inspire confidence
in the public we serve." Trump never got
around to taking that down from the
Department of Justice website I'm sure
he will Now now here's where the judge
said it was unconscionable Let me read
to you from certain pages of her
decision Again there's no major decision
or one opinion written by the majority
These are separate opinions written by
the judges but they all came to the same
conclusion They're not going to block
Judge Zitis' order But here's what
here's what Thaker
wrote The p um the panel unanimously
agrees that the district court's order
requiring the government to facilitate
and effectuate the return of plaintiff
Armando Abrego Garcia to the United
States no longer than 11:59 p.m on
Monday this Monday should be not be
stayed The government's motion to stay
is denied The United States government
has no legal authority Judge Thacker
writes to snatch a person who is
lawfully present in the United States
off the street and remove him from the
country without due process The
government's contention otherwise and
its argument that the federal courts are
powerless to intervene where they don't
have jurisdiction are
unconscionable Shocks the consciousness
That's what she's trying to say And as I
outlined it he had a a uh he was granted
a withholding of removal certificate
from a federal judge immigration judge
back in
2019 ICE snatched him up even though he
had a green card They said that his
status had changed which it had not They
then admitted Mr Ruveni who's now needs
to be hired by somebody note to all the
big law firms that bent to Donald Trump
you should hire Mr Ruveni as penitence
for what you've done But he's because
he's now lost his job Which also by the
side note if I'm I would make a bar bar
referral about Todd Blanch the
Department of Justice number two
official that ordered him to lie because
that is a violation of his code of
conduct his code of professional
responsibility We'll leave that for
another hot take Here's what the judge
said
um on March 15th 2025 bottom of page
three and what the government has
conceded as an administrative error
Nothing like sending somebody in an
administrative error to the dark deep
dank recesses of the one of the world's
most notorious killer uh jails in El
Salvador The government flew Abrego
Garcia from the United States to Tal uh
Tealuca El
Salvador This person should the
plaintiff should not have been removed
That is not in dispute That's Mr Ruveni
for the Department of Justice That's why
he got canned He was placed on page four
at the Terrorism Confinement Center
which they call SECOT in El Salvador a
notorious supermax prison known for
widespread human rights violations The
government took this action pursuant to
its agreement with El Salvador wherein
the United States paid El Salvador $6
million to hold detainees for one year
pending the United States decision on
their long-term disposition Doesn't that
sound like the US has power over how to
get them back that they've delegated to
El Salvador basically outsourced part of
their prison system So this this
argument that the government is making
is we can't get him back and you can't
order us to get him back because there's
no jurisdiction because he's not in the
country You know this old catch 22 The
judge says "No I have inherent
authority." Judge Dennis says "I have
inherent authority an equitable
authority to make this order and to
review an unconstitutional illegal act
by the federal government And it doesn't
have to be done in what's called habius
corpus petition which means you got to
bring the body you know to the court."
He's not trying to get out of detention
by the way at the moment He's just
trying to get back and be repatriated
from El Salvador because of an illegal
removal order This is not about I want
to make this clear He's not going to see
his family on Monday I mean unless he
sees it you know wearing a jumpsuit at a
federal detention center in America He's
not getting out yet But we're talking
about due process We're talking about
fifth amendment We're talking about
right to to uh to uh uh confront your
accusers We're talking about evidence
We're talking about a judge determining
whether he is a member of a gang or he's
a or he's a victim himself along with
his family of a kidnapping plot That's
the issue But that has to be adjudicated
You can't just say "Yeah what's your
name?" Yeah I don't like that Uh where
you from El Salvador You're going back
Get on a plane Yeah That that is the
country we don't want to live in I
assure you Here's what um Judge uh
Thacker says in uh about the the illegal
order Uh thus the question on page six
she says is whether the government is
likely to succeed on the merits of its
claims that the attorney general removed
Abrao Garcia pursuant to a lawful order
of removal They said it's been conceded
by the Department of Justice That's why
Ruveni is about to get fired That they
there was an illegal removal So what are
we talking about Or as or as the other
judge in his order in his decision wrote
Judge King it was an oopsie It was a
screw-up He he he characterized that's
the battle between the Obama appointee
and the Clinton appointee The Obama
appointee wants to appropriately go
through all of the separation of powers
illegal acts um issues And King who's 85
years old he just wants to say it was an
oopsie It's a mulligan They should get
him back Uh but you know I don't want to
set up a constitutional crisis We're
already set up for a constitutional
crisis Wake up of Trump's making How
many hot takes do I have to start with
Here's another constitutional crisis
established by Donald Trump My joke is
it's another constitutional crisis It
must be Monday with Donald Trump So the
ending of this um order after they go
through all of the admissions is I don't
believe you about not being able to get
him back So you have a a three judge
panel who effectively says it's fallen
on deaf ears your position that you have
don't have the power through foreign
relations and through the agreements you
signed with El Salvador to get that back
Even MAGA can't believe that Even MAGA
can't believe that Donald Trump was
stupid enough to send somebody off to a
prison outside the country he has no
control over the ability to get somebody
back from I mean is again is this the
United States that you want to live in I
don't think so And with all due respect
to Judge King although he got to the
right place in his joining in the
majority decision the three-0 decision
to to argue that to uh to rule that
Judge Zenis was right he got there for
the dumbest of reasons you know Oh it
was just an error It was just a screw up
There's He says on page 17 there's no
question the government screwed it up
here Aren't we beyond screwed it up here
Aren't we beyond glitches Aren't we
beyond you know it's just a course
correction Call it for what it is Speak
truth to each other on the panel This is
a violation of the fifth amendment of
due process rights of epic proportion
This is a violation of separation of
powers This is a violation of other
federal judges orders by the executive
branch Call it for what it is Don't
sugarcoat it Don't sweet talk it We
won't do that here We're on Midas Touch
Network and on Legal AF I'm Michael
Popach I'll give you an update You know
what's happening next Fastmoving story
Come back on Midas Touch and Legal AF
for updates You know what's going to
happen next They're off and running to
the United States Supreme Court question
is whether they're going to get a uh
stay an administrative stay or otherwise
while the court gets its mind and hearts
around this particular issue and what's
going to happen to ao Garcia at 11:59
tonight I have a guest Come back on that
cliffhanger I'll report on it I'm
Michael Popak in the inter room In
collaboration with the Midas Touch
Network

[admin]

Trump DOJ Benches Lawyer For Telling Judge Truth
Yep, that's where we are.
by Marcie Jones
Wonkette
Apr 07, 2025
https://www.wonkette.com/p/trump-doj-be ... or-telling

Every criminal cartel needs protection against truth and consequences, and this administration is hellbound to quash anyone, anywhere who might challenge little mister Dictator Day One. No more checks and balances, no more questions, just swerving at 120 into constitutional crisis like rapping Natalie Portman.

And now another scalp in the Justice Department. Attorney Erez Reuveni was placed on leave on Sunday for the disloyalty of telling a judge that the government had not given him any information on the OOPS … TOO LATE! laugh emoji! deportation of Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who the DHS sent to El Salvador by accident, in defiance of a court order.

“My answer to a lot of these questions is going to be frustrating,” Reuveni told US District Judge Paula Xinis. “And I’m frustrated that I don’t have answers to a lot of these questions.” And he asked the judge for 24 hours to try to persuade “his client,” the government, to begin the process of retrieving Abrego Garcia. BUUUT, instead, within 24 hours, Deputy AG Todd Blanche, who thinks he’s still Trump’s personal lawyer we guess, had Reuveni put on leave for not defending administration policies “zealously” enough.

What was the lawyer supposed to do, run around the courtroom flapping his arms and shouting PLENARY EXECUTIVE POWER! MAGA! ALL HAIL KING TRUMP DISAPPEARING PEOPLE TO TORTURE PRISON BECAUSE HE CAN MUTHAFUCKAAAA!!! and laughing like Woody Woodpecker? Then lecture the judge about how the REAL constitutional crisis is that anyone DARES to sue Trump at all, like Pam Bondi said on Fox News this weekend? Probably.

(By the way, Bondi is straight-up lying there that Trans Ban Pete won his “military readiness”/Talbott v. United States argument in ANY court, as every single judge that has seen that pile o’crap has poop-scooped it, and the military is not allowed to discharge any people for being trans, as of now.)

Lie, lie, lie, you get the point, Dictator Day One and company want to hurry up and whack all the lawsuits and get to the part where the Supreme Court crowns Trump Final Super Duper Couper King Of Forever, once and for all.

To that end, poor Kilmar Abrego Garcia! On March 12 the US mistakenly put the law-abiding married father and Salvadoran national on one of those fights to the Salvadoran prison Kristi Noem swanned in front of in a $60K Rolex.

Abrego Garcia had been in the US since 2012, with no criminal record in the US or in any other country, and there is no evidence he is, or has even been, a member of MS-13 or any other gang, in fact in 2019 he even applied for asylum and protection under the UN Convention Against Torture, seeking protections against the GANGS that he’s accused of being a member of, and is now cheek-to-jowl in torture-prison with.

An immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal in 2019. And then on March 12 ICE disappeared him, with no kind of due process whatsoever, and put him on one of those OOPS … TOO LATE no-time-for-due-process planes to El Salvador, along with 260-ish other people accused of things like having tattoos.

And the “due process” part is pretty fucking important, because if Dictator Day One’s administration gets away with defying court orders and doing OOPS, ALL TORTURE PRISON, NO TAKEBACKS, then ANYONE could be sent to Salvadoran prison, or any other foreign-government-run prison, for doing ANYTHING to piss the government off. And Trump is already fantasizing about how he would love to send American citizens to foreign prison on Air Force One: “We have some horrible criminals, American grown and born […] if we could get El Salvador or somebody to take them, I’d be happy with it,” he says around minute 14, there:

How can they justify this, morally or legally? BECAUSE NO TAKEBACKS! Snotted Karoline Leavitt’s Mar-a-Lago-face:

We suggest the Judge contact [Salvadoran] President [Nayib] Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador.

Chimed in pinworm Stephen Miller on Xitter:

“The alien was a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization,” and “Marxist judge now thinks she’s president of El Salvador.”

And the White House posted, because cruelty is literally the only thing that gives these people any pleasure whatsoever:

It is true that US judges cannot order the Salvadoran government to do anything. But they can order US government officials to do things. Like, put Kristi Noem on the stand and ask her what DHS has done to try to get Abrego Garcia back, and tell Noem to ask the Salvadoran government and whatever demons from hell the government has contracted with down there to give him back, considering Noem bragged the prison was “one of the tools” in the government’s deportation shed. Presumably the judge could even hold Noem in contempt if she won’t testify or show that she’s making any moves. Will it come to that, and what might happen next? [size=120]It’s all uncharted territory, because the government has never been so fucking disrespectful to itself and the rule of law before.

On Friday, US District Judge Paula Xinis ordered that the government return Abrego Garcia by midnight that night, ripped them for the “grievous error” that “shocks the conscience,” and the Justice Department has appealed that order to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the meantime, Abrego Garcia is in serious danger down there.

Ugh, we will keep you posted.

[admin]

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... ca4-ag.pdf

FILED: April 7, 2025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 25-1345
(8:25-cv-00951-PX)
___________________
KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA; JENNIFER STEFANIA VASQUEZ SURA; A.A.V., a minor, by and through his next friend and mother, Jennifer Vasquez Sura

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

KRISTI NOEM; TODD LYONS; KENNETH GENALO; NIKITA BAKER; PAMELA JO BONDI; MARCO RUBIO

Defendants - Appellants

-------------------------------

ERWIN CHEMERINSKY; MARTHA MINOW; LAURENCE H. TRIBE, Professors

Amici Supporting Appellees
___________________

O R D E R
___________________

Upon consideration of the submissions relative to Appellants’ motion for stay pending appeal and immediate administrative stay, the court denies the motion.

Entered at the direction of Judge Thacker with the concurrence of Judge Wilkinson and Judge King.

For the Court
/s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk

THACKER, Circuit Judge, with whom Judge KING joins, concurring:

The panel unanimously agrees that the district court’s order requiring the Government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed. The Government’s motion to stay is, therefore, denied. I write to explain my view.

The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.

I.

Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran national who has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, when he was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has no criminal history and has never even been charged with a crime in the United States, El Salvador, or any other country. On March 12, 2025, agents with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Abrego Garcia into custody without authority. Although ICE agents told Abrego Garcia that his “status had changed,” S.A.1 19; 147, that was not true. On March 15, 2025, in what the Government has conceded was “an administrative error,” the Government flew Abrego Garcia from the United States to Tecoluca, El Salvador. Dist. Ct. Op. at 2 n.3 (citing Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, at 19:11–13 (Mr. Reuveni: “This person should -- the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.”)). He was placed at the Terrorism Confinement Center (“CECOT”) in El Salvador, “a notorious supermax prison known for widespread human rights violations.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 5. The Government undertook this action pursuant to its agreement with El Salvador, wherein the United States paid El Salvador six million dollars to hold detainees “for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on [their] long term disposition.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 6.

On March 24, 2025, Abrego Garcia, along with his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, and son, filed a lawsuit in the District of Maryland against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; Acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons; Acting Executive Associate Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, Kenneth Genalo; ICE Baltimore Field Office Director, Nikita Baker; Attorney General, Pamela Bondi; and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio (collectively the “Government”). Abrego Garcia’s complaint asserts five claims for relief premised on his forcible removal to El Salvador: (1) violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); (2) violation of procedural due process pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (3) violation of substantive due process pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (4) violation the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); and (5) for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Abrego Garcia moved for a temporary restraining order, requesting that the district court order the Government “to request that the government of El Salvador remove Mr. Abrego Garcia from the CECOT . . . and return him to the custody of the United States” and “stop compensating the operators of the CECOT torture prison for their continued detention of Mr. Abrego Garcia.” S.A. 34. The district court held a hearing on Abrego Garcia’s motion on April 4, 2025. That same day, the district court issued an order construing the motion as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief and granting that relief. The district court ordered the Government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025.” Mot. for Stay Add. at 2.2 In response, the Government filed a notice of appeal, and moved before this court for an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal and an administrative stay.

II.

“A stay is not a matter of right,” but is “instead an exercise of judicial discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (cleaned up). As the party seeking relief, the Government bears the burden of demonstrating “that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433–34. In making that determination, we must consider the following factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. at 434. While the last two factors merge “when the Government is the opposing party,” id. at 435, they remain “distinct” here, where the Government is the party seeking the stay, U.S. Navy Seals 1-26 v. Biden, 27 F.4th 336, 353 (5th Cir. 2022).

The Government argues it is entitled to a stay because: (1) the district court’s order was impermissibly broad and violated the separation of powers; (2) the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear Appellees’ lawsuit; and (3) the equities favor Appellees.

III.

A.

I begin with the Government’s second argument because our first act must always be to determine the existence of jurisdiction. The Government argues that the district court, and thus this court, lacks jurisdiction because the INA strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review “any cause or claim by or on behalf of any [non-citizen] arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to . . . execute removal orders against any [non-citizen].” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). But, as the Supreme Court has made clear, § 1252(g) strips the federal courts of jurisdiction only to review the Attorney General’s exercise of lawful discretion to commence removal proceedings, adjudicate those cases, and execute orders of removal. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999). “There are of course many other decisions or actions that may be part of the deportation process,” but the jurisdictional bar “applies only to [those] three discrete actions.” Id.

Thus, the question is whether the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that the Attorney General removed Abrego Garcia pursuant to a lawful order of removal. The Government claims in its motion that “[t]here is no doubt that a removal order was issued against Abrego Garcia . . . . [a]nd there is no doubt that Abrego Garcia was removed pursuant to that order.” Mot. for Stay at 12; see also Mot for Stay Add. at 53, Decl. of Robert Cerna, ICE Field Officer (“Cerna Declaration”) ([explaining that Abrego Garcia’s removal was “an oversight” but was “based on the existence of a final order of removal"). But the Government is wrong. While an “order of removal is separate from and antecedent to a grant of withholding of removal,” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 540 (2021), the Government well knows -- or should know -- that the grant of withholding prevents the Attorney General from removing the non-citizen to the country specified in the withholding order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (explaining that, subject to certain exception, “the Attorney General may not remove a [non-citizen] to a country if the Attorney General decides that the [non-citizen’s] life or freedom would be threatened in that country” for certain statutorily protected reasons).

As the Government readily admits, Abrego Garcia was granted withholding of removal -- “It is true that an immigration judge concluded six years ago that Abrego Garcia should not be returned to El Salvador.” Mot. for Stay at 16; see also Cerna Declaration at 53 (“ICE was aware of this grant of withholding of removal at the time [of] Abrego-Garcia’s removal from the United States.”).3 And “the Government had available a procedural mechanism under governing regulations to reopen the immigration judge’s prior order, and terminate its withholding protection.” Mot. for Stay at 16–17. But, “the Government did not avail itself of that procedure in this case.” Id.; see Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (Mr. Reuveni: “There’s no dispute that the order [of removal] could not be used to send Mr. Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.” (quoting Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, at 25:6–7)); see also Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. at 531 (explaining that a non-citizen who has been granted withholding of removal may not be removed “to the country designated in the removal order unless the order of withholding is terminated”). Based on those facts, the Government conceded during the district court hearing, “The facts -- we concede the facts. This person should -- the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.” S.A. 98 (emphasis supplied).4

As such, the Attorney General’s decision to remove Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was not one that was within her lawful discretion. The removal was not the enforcement of a valid order of removal. Instead, it was plainly in violation of § 1231(b)(3)(A). And because removing Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was not an action undertaken within the Attorney General’s discretion, § 1252(g) does not strip us of jurisdiction here. Therefore, the Government is not likely to succeed on its argument that we lack jurisdiction.

B.

Next, I turn to the Government’s argument that the scope of the district court’s injunction is an unlawful violation of the Separation of Powers because it intrudes into Article II’s exclusive delegation of international relations to the Executive. Mot. for Stay at 11 (“A judicial order that forces the Executive to engage with a foreign power in a certain way, let alone compel a certain action by a foreign sovereign, is constitutionally intolerable.”).5 Critically, what the Government fails to acknowledge is that just as it is the province of the Executive to undertake its Constitutional duties within the bounds of its legitimate authority, so too is it “the province and duty of the judicial department to determine in cases regularly brought before them, whether the powers of any branch of the government . . . have been exercised in conformity to the Constitution; and if they have not, to treat their acts as null and void.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 506 (1969). Indeed, precisely to provide “practical and real protections for individual liberty,” the Framers drafted a Constitution that divides the legislative, executive, and judicial powers between three branches of Government.” Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 414 (2024) (Thomas J., concurring). Thus, “the legislature makes, the executive executes, and the judiciary construes the law.” Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 46 (1825) (Marshall, C.J.).

In any event, the Government’s argument that the district court’s order improperly directs the Executive’s engagement in international affairs by requiring it to somehow “compel a certain action by a foreign sovereign” is inaccurate. Mot. for Stay at 11. The Government avers that it no longer has authority over Abrego Garcia after it placed him in Salvadoran custody. But as the district court explained, the Government has not provided any evidence to support its claim that it lacks the authority to return Abrego Garcia to the United States.

THE COURT: Can we talk about, then, just very practically, why can’t the United States get Mr. Abrego Garcia back?

MR. REUVENI: Your Honor, I will say, for the Court's awareness, that when this case landed on my desk, the first thing I did was ask my clients that very question. I’ve not received, to date, an answer that I find satisfactory.[???!!]

Dist. Ct. Op. at 12 (quoting Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, at 35–36).

What is more, all publicly available information about the Government’s agreement with El Salvador indicates that the Government has “outsource[d] part of the [United States’] prison system.” Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele),6 X (Mar. 19, 2025, 8:12 PM), https://x.com/nayibbukele/status/1886606794614587573; see also U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., How It’s Going, DHS, https://www.dhs.gov/medialibrary/assets/video/59108 (last visited Apr. 6, 2025) (quoting Defendant Noem: “This facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use”). And, El Salvador’s ministry of foreign affairs confirmed that it “will house these individuals for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on their long term disposition.” S.A. 149 (quoting Matthew Lee & Regina Garcia Cano, Trump Officials Secretly Deported Venezuelans and Salvadorans to a Notorious Prison in El Salvador, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Mar. 15, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trumpdeporta ... b35eeecce7 (emphasis supplied)).

Considering these facts, and with no evidence to the contrary provided by the Government, the district court properly determined that “just as in any other contract facility, Defendants can and do maintain the power to secure and transport their detainees, Abrego Garcia included.” Dist. Ct. Opinion at 12. In its filings before this court, the Government makes no more than a naked assertion that Abrego Garcia “is in the custody of a foreign sovereign over whom America has no jurisdiction.” Mot. for Stay at 9. But the record demonstrates otherwise. There is no indication that Abrego Garcia has been charged with a crime in El Salvador or is being held there pursuant to the laws of El Salvador. On the contrary, Abrego Garcia is a detainee of the United States Government, who is being housed temporarily in El Salvador, “pending the United States’ decision on [his] long term disposition.” S.A. 149. Thus, the district court’s order does not require the United States to demand anything of a foreign sovereign.

The Government’s claim that it can remove an individual from the United States pursuant to such an agreement and thereby lose the ability to reclaim that individual and return him to the country for process (or for any other purpose) cannot stand. The Government’s actions in this case most assuredly violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The Government cannot escape its responsibility to return Abrego Garcia to the United States by claiming it now lacks authority to control El Salvador. And the district court’s injunction requires no such thing. The injunction requires only that the United States Government exercise the authority and control it must have retained over the detainees it is temporarily housing in El Salvador. Requiring that the Government effectuate and facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return is not a novel order. The Government can -- and does -- return wrongfully removed migrants as a matter of course. See Nken v. Holder[/b, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009) ([b]“[Non-Citizens] who are removed may continue to pursue their petitions for review, and those that prevail can be afforded effective relief by facilitation of their return, along with restoration of the immigration status they had upon removal.”).7

Requiring the Government to do so here is nothing less than exercising our duty to uphold the separation of powers. Indeed, “[a] world in which federal courts lacked the power to order the government to take every possible step to bring back to the United States individuals like Abrego Garcia is a world in which the government could send any of us to a Salvadoran prison without due process, claim that the misstep was a result of ‘administrative error,’ and thereby wash its hands of any responsibility for what happens next.” Steve Vladeck, Abrego Garcia, Constructive Custody, and Federal Judicial Power (Apr. 5, 2025), https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/138-abre ... ve-custody [https://perma.cc/7GFQ-6V6A].

C.

Before turning to the Government’s final argument regarding the public interest, I note that the Government made no argument whatsoever that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay of the district court’s injunction. Pursuant to Nken, the Government, as the stay applicant, must demonstrate that it “will be irreparably injured absent a stay.” 556 U.S. at 434. Yet, the Government has not even attempted to make this showing. Perhaps for good reason -- the Government is not irreparably harmed by facilitating and effectuating the return of a person within its control who was wrongfully removed from the United States. And, as noted above, the Government has conceded that Abrego Garcia “should not have been removed” in the first place. S.A. 98. This failure alone is fatal to the Government’s request for a stay.

D.

Finally, I turn to the Government’s assertion that the public interest favors a stay because Abrego Garicia is a “prominent” member of MS-13 and is therefore “no longer eligible for withholding relief.” Mot. for Stay at 14–15. Whatever the merits of the 2019 determination of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) regarding Abrego Garcia’s connection to MS-13,8 the Government presented “[n]o evidence” to the district court to “connect[] Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or any other criminal organization.” Dis.t Ct. Op. at 22 n.19; see also id. at 2 n.2 (“Invoking such theories for the first time on appeal cannot cure the failure to present them before this Court.”). Indeed, such a fact cannot be gleaned from this record, which shows that Abrego Garcia has no criminal history, in this country or anywhere else, and that Abrego Garcia is a gainfully employed family man who lives a law abiding and productive life. Tellingly, the Government “abandon[ed]” its position that Abrego Garcia was “a danger to the community” at the hearing before the district court. Dist. Ct. Op. at 22 n.19. The balance of equities must tip in the movant’s favor based on the record before the issuing court. An unsupported -- and then abandoned -- assertion that Abrego Garcia was a member of a gang, does not tip the scales in favor of removal in violation of this Administration’s own9 withholding order. If the Government wanted to prove to the district court that Abrego Garcia was a “prominent” member of MS-13, it has had ample opportunity to do so but has not -- nor has it even bothered to try.

The Government’s argument that there is a public interest in removing members of “violent transnational gangs” from this country is no doubt true, but it does nothing to help the Government’s cause here. As noted, the Government has made no effort to demonstrate that Abrego Garcia is, in fact, a member of any gang, nor did the Government avail itself of the “procedural mechanism under governing regulations to reopen the immigration judge’s prior order[] and terminate its withholding protection.” Mot. for Stay at 16–17. The Government may not rely on its own failure to circumvent its own ruling that Abrego Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador. More importantly, the Government cannot be permitted to ignore the Fifth Amendment, deny due process of law, and remove anyone it wants, simply because it claims the victims of its lawlessness are members of a gang. Nor can the Government be permitted to disclaim any ability to return those it has wrongfully removed by citing their physical presence in a foreign jurisdiction. This is a slippery -- and dangerous -- constitutional slope. If due process is of no moment, what is stopping the Government from removing and refusing to return a lawful permanent resident or even a natural born citizen?

Contrary to the Government’s position, “upholding constitutional rights surely serves the public interest.” Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002); Nken, 556 U.S. at 436 (“[T]here is a public interest in preventing [non-citizens] from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.”). This is the exact situation the Government has placed Abrego Garcia in. An IJ has already determined that Abrego Garcia was entitled to withholding of removal to El Salvador because he was likely to face persecution there. But the Government removed him anyway. The irreparable harm in this case is the harm being done to Abrego Garcia every minute he is in El Salvador. And the public interest undoubtedly favors requiring the Government to facilitate and effectuate his return to the United States.

The balance of equities cannot support what the Government has done here.

IV.

My good colleague Judge Wilkinson believes that I view this case as a simple one. I do not. I do, however, view it as straightforward. As Judge Wilkinson notes, the Government “screwed up.” Post at 17. The Government has admitted as much. And now it must clean up the mess it has made.

The Government’s motion for a temporary administrative stay and a stay pending appeal of the district court’s injunction is

DENIED.

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of a motion for a stay pending appeal:

I would deny the request for a stay of the district court’s order pending appeal. We deal here with what I hope is the extraordinary circumstance of the government conceding that it made an error in deporting the plaintiff to a foreign country for which he was not eligible for removal. In this situation, I think it legitimate for the district court to require that the government “facilitate” the plaintiff’s return to the United States so that he may assert the rights that all apparently agree are due him under law. It is fair to read the district court’s order as one requiring that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release, rather than demand it. The former seems within the trial court’s lawful powers in this circumstance; the latter would be an intrusion on core executive powers that goes too far.

I.

There is no question that the government screwed up here. Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding of removal order. An immigration judge granted this protection pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) on the basis that plaintiff’s family had been subject to gang-based extortion when he lived in El Salvador, and that he would more likely than not be persecuted further upon his return. See Compl. ¶ 41.

The withholding of removal order was country specific; it banned the government from removing Abrego Garcia to El Salvador and El Salvador only. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (“[T]he Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien's life or freedom would be threatened in that country . . . .” (emphasis added)); Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 531-32 (2021). Thus the government here took the only action which was expressly prohibited. It had no authority to remove plaintiff to El Salvador without first seeking to reopen and successfully terminate the withholding of removal. This protection is a mandatory limit on the Executive’s deportation power, not a discretionary one. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 115 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 420 (1999)).

And the government rightfully concedes that it was an “error” and a “mistake” to ignore this process. Mot. for Stay at 16-17. And, if it is truly a mistake, one would also expect the government to do what it can to rectify it. Most of us attempt to undo, to the extent that we can, the mistakes that we have made. But, to the best of my knowledge, the government has not made the attempt here. The facts of this case thus present the potential for a disturbing loophole: namely that the government could whisk individuals to foreign prisons in violation of court orders and then contend, invoking its Article II powers, that it is no longer their custodian, and there is nothing that can be done. It takes no small amount of imagination to understand that this is a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone.

II.

That having been said, the government articulates a powerful separation-of-powers principle: that judicial orders should not require the government to demand from a foreign nation that it release one of its own citizens from one of its own facilities and return that individual to the United States. Demanding such a thing breaches not only the sovereignty of another country, but the separation of powers embedded in the Constitution of our own. Even plaintiffs concede that the Judiciary cannot order such a demand. See Renewed Mot. for TRO ¶ 3. This would not only introduce tensions between the United States and its allies, it would also invite other nations simply to defy the order by saying, in effect, “Just who do you think you are?”

I am reluctant to embed any such principle in our jurisprudence. Much debate has centered around the question of the propriety of nation-wide injunctions by the lower federal courts. I recognize that the relief requested here is to an individual rather than to a class. At the same time, the territorial overreach of a nationwide injunction is compounded when the injunction applies abroad in the manner evidenced herein and intrudes upon the authority of the democratic branches, principally the Executive, in the field of international diplomacy. I do not wish to have planetary injunctions become a routine feature of judicial overreach whenever some mere defect in the execution of removal is discerned by a federal judge.

Put bluntly, our founding document entrusted the conduct of international relations to the democratic branches, and that conduct involves negotiation in all manner of interaction with other nations. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936) (“The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.” (quoting 10 ANNALS OF CONG. 613 (1800) (statement of then-Representative John Marshall))); Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 13, 20-21 (2015). Moreover, the remedial powers of the federal courts have never been thought to be unlimited. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 132 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring). The equitable power of the federal courts cannot be read to override the design compellingly set forth in our Constitution, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. That document grants substantive authority in foreign affairs both to Congress in Article I and to the Executive in Article II. No such substantive power is granted to the Judiciary. And its equitable instincts, so poignantly presented by the district court’s opinion here, can still not override the entrustment of precisely this sort of matter to the other branches of our government.

III.

My good colleague sees this as a simple case. I see it as a complex one. We are seemingly caught between two legitimate principles here. One is the fear that the government will preemptively transport—without due process and in contradiction to court orders—residents of this country to other nations and then cite its Article II powers for the proposition that courts are powerless to redress the action. Two is the concern that federal courts can require the Executive Branch to dictate to other sovereign countries the release of their own citizens from their own facilities for return to the United States.

The conflict between the two principles, however, may be more apparent than real. Construing the trial court’s direction to the government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release relieves the government of its fear that it is breaching the sovereignty of another nation by demanding the release of its own citizens whom it is detaining. Positing the government’s duty as simply one of facilitation also softens the tension between the judicial and executive branches. Further confining the district court’s directive as an opportunity for the government to correct its own admitted error allays the concern that the Judiciary is on the verge of some broad intrusion into what rightly are executive diplomatic powers. At the same time, it vindicates the interests of courts in upholding the respect due the fundamental value of the rule of law.

Broad powers are not “unbounded” powers. See Zivotofsky, 576 U.S. at 20. The President’s robust foreign-affairs powers must still accommodate his obligation to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. CONST. art II, § 3 (emphasis added). And that must include both laws passed by Congress and the orders prescribed by courts. But, at the same time, the Executive’s broad authority in international relations must afford it latitude as to how the facilitation of Abrego Garcia’s release can best be accomplished. In this case, that means that the relationship between the executive and judicial powers might be more collaborative than combative. The separation of powers has never been defined by its rigidity but by a play in the joints. See, e.g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 381 (1989) (adopting a “flexible understanding of separation of powers”). A reciprocal respect for the roles of the Executive and the Judiciary may be too much to hope for in this most fraught and polarized of times, but it remains the only way that our system of constitutional governance can ever hope to work.

For the foregoing reasons, I would uphold the authority of the district court to require that the government “facilitate” the plaintiff’s return to the United States. I would deny the request for a stay of the district court’s order pending appeal.

_______________

Notes:

1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix attached to Abrego Garcia’s response to the Government’s motion for a stay.

2 On April 6, 2025, the district court issued a thorough memorandum opinion detailing its sound reasoning.

3 Consistent with this reality, the Government attorney appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr’g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22 (counsel confirming that “the removal order” from 2019 “cannot be executed” and is not part of the record)).

5 To the extent the Government argues that the scope of the district court’s order was improper because Abrego Garcia never asked for an order facilitating his return to the United States, that is incorrect. See S.A. 88 (arguing that the district court has “jurisdiction to order [the Government] to facilitate his return, and what we would like is for the Court to enter that order”); see also S.A. 74–75; 85–87.

6 Nayib Bukele is the President of El Salvador.

7 See also Lopez-Sorto v. Garland, 103 F.4th 242, 248–53 (4th Cir. 2024) (explaining that the Government could redress wrongful removal to El Salvador by facilitating the plaintiff’s return per DHS’ own directives); Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706–07 (4th Cir. 2018) (“As our sister circuits have done in similar circumstances, we grant this relief because judicial review would otherwise be frustrated if [petitioner] cannot be restored to the status he had before his removal.”) (collecting cases); Nunez-Vasquez v. Barr, 965 F.3d 272, 287 (4th Cir. 2020) (directing Government “to return Nunez-Vasquez to the United States”); Gordon v. Barr, 965 F.3d 252, 261 (4th Cir. 2020) (similar); Orabi v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 738 F.3d 535, 543 (3d Cir. 2014) (vacating the BIA’s order and directing the Government “to return [petitioner] to the United States”); Samirah v. Holder, 627 F.3d 652, 665 (7th Cir. 2010) (“We remand . . . for the issuance of a mandamus commanding the Attorney General to take whatever steps are necessary to enable the plaintiff to reenter the United States for the limited purpose of reacquiring the status . . . that he enjoyed when he left the United States.”).

8 Even then, the Government’s “evidence” of any connection between Abrego Garcia and MS-13 was thin, to say the least. The Government’s claim was based on (1) Abrego Garcia “wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie,” and (2) “a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York—a place he has never lived.” S.A. 146 n.5; Mot. for Stay Add. at 10–11.

9 Of note, the IJ’s 2019 decision, which granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) because he faced threats to his life from an El Salvadoran gang that had targeted him and his family, was during President Trump’s 2016–2020 term in office. That decision became final on November 9, 2019, and was not appealed by this Administration.

[admin]

‘This is a Path of Perfect Lawlessness’: Court Condemns Trump Over Wrongful Deportation
by Jacob Knutson
Democracy Docket
April 7, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... go-garcia/

Chief Justice John Roberts put a temporary stay on a lower-court order requiring the Trump administration to return a wrongfully deported Salvadorian immigrant to the U.S. by midnight Monday.

Supreme Court of the United States

No. 24A949

KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,

Applicants

v.

KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA, ET AL.

O R D E R

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,

IT IS ORDERED that the April 4, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, case No. 8:25-cv-951, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Tuesday, April 8th, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).

/s/ John G. Roberts, Jr.
Chief Justice of the United States

Dated this 7th day of April 2025.

Roberts’ stay came hours after a three-judge panel for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the Trump administration’s request to overturn the lower-court order.

The Supreme Court’s administrative stay gives justices additional time to rule on the dispute.

“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” the court ruled. “The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”

President Donald Trump last month invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), an 18th century wartime law, to deport the man, Kilmer Abrego Garcia, and hundreds of other people to a hard labor prison in El Salvador.

The U.S. government claimed those deported were members of Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal organization based in Venezuela. However, it didn’t give them the chance to challenge their designation, nor did it publicly provide evidence they are members of the gang.

Officials said in court filings last week that the Trump administration made an “administrative error” by deporting Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. An immigration judge had previously determined that he should not be sent to his home country because he could be persecuted and tortured by gangs that extorted his family.

Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident working as a sheet metal apprentice, has a wife and five-year-old child who are both U.S. citizens. He has never even been charged with a crime in the U.S., El Salvador or any other country.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him on March 12. The Trump administration has repeatedly alleged, without showing proof either in public or in the courts, that he has ties to the MS-13 gang.

A federal judge ordered the government last week to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. by midnight Monday. The Trump administration mocked the court’s order, claiming it couldn’t return him and that the judge had no authority to order his return. It asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling.

The federal appeals panel said it denied the Trump administration’s order in part because its actions have “most assuredly violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

“The Government can — and does — return wrongfully removed migrants as a matter of course,” the court said. “Requiring the Government to do so here is nothing less than exercising our duty to uphold the separation of powers.”

Before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Monday, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court. In the government’s application to SCOTUS, Solicitor General Dean Sauer claimed that the U.S. should not have to return Abrego Garcia because he’s “a verified member of MS-13.”

The 4th U.S. Circuit panel noted that the Department of Justice presented no evidence that Abrego Garcia was a member of the gang. It also noted that Abrego Garcia was accused of being a member of the gang’s arm in New York — where he has never lived.

“There is no question that the government screwed up here,” Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote. “The withholding of removal order was country specific; it banned the government from removing Abrego Garcia to El Salvador and El Salvador only.”

Wilkinson said granting the Trump administration’s request would create a loophole through which it could “whisk individuals to foreign prisons in violation of court orders and then contend, invoking its Article II powers, that it is no longer their custodian, and there is nothing that can be done.”

“It takes no small amount of imagination to understand that this is a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone,” Wilkinson said.

Over the weekend, Trump endorsed sending U.S. citizens to El Salvador prisons.

[admin]

Justice Department seeks to restrict testimony of fired pardon attorney
by Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer
Los Angeles Times
April 7, 2025 12:15 PM PT
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st ... n-attorney

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is attempting to use executive privilege to prevent its fired pardon attorney from telling Congress about the circumstances of her departure, and dispatched armed deputy U.S. marshals to her home to deliver restrictions on her testimony, according to letters made public Monday.

Liz Oyer, who has said she was fired as the department’s pardon attorney last month after refusing a request to recommend that actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights be restored, is among several witnesses invited to appear Monday before a joint hearing of House and Senate lawmakers.

The hearing, which among other witnesses is to feature a former public corruption prosecutor who resigned under protest amid the Justice Department’s dismissal of its case against New York Mayor Eric Adams, will represent the first time in the new Trump administration that newly departed Justice Department lawyers have spoken publicly before Congress about the circumstances of their departures and their concerns with leadership of the federal law enforcement agency.

Ahead of the hearing, the Justice Department warned Oyer that any testimony about deliberations concerning the pardon process and the restoration of gun rights would run afoul of executive privilege, a legal principle that broadly refers to a president’s power to keep information from the courts, Congress and the public to protect the confidentiality of presidential decision-making.

That admonition was communicated in a letter that was to have been delivered to Oyer’s home late Friday night by deputy marshals, according to a separate letter from her lawyer, Michael Bromwich, who described the episode as a “deplorable incident.” Oyer was able to confirm receipt of the letter, which was also sent to her email address, and forestall the arrival of the marshals to her home, her lawyer said.

“This highly unusual step of directing armed law enforcement officers to the home of a former Department of Justice employee who has engaged in no misconduct, let alone criminal conduct, simply to deliver a letter, is both unprecedented and completely inappropriate,” Bromwich wrote.

Justice Department spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

***************************

Fired Justice Department pardon attorney accuses the agency of ‘ongoing corruption,’ abuse of power
by Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer
AP
Updated 8:02 PM MDT, April 7, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/justice-depa ... 333f372fc7

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department’s recently fired pardon attorney accused the leadership of the law enforcement agency of “ongoing corruption,” testifying Monday at a congressional hearing meant to showcase concerns that the Trump administration is assaulting the rule of law, abusing its power and forcing out career civil servants.

“It should alarm all Americans that the leadership of the Department of Justice appears to value political loyalty above the fair and responsible administration of justice,” said Liz Oyer, who has said she was fired last month after refusing to recommend that the gun rights of actor Mel Gibson, a supporter of President Donald Trump’s, be restored.

“It should offend all Americans that our leaders are treating public servants with a lack of basic decency and humanity,” she added.

The hearing represented the first time in the new Trump administration that Justice Department lawyers who were either recently fired or quit have spoken before Congress about the circumstances of their departures and their concerns about the agency’s direction. It unfolded as a wave of resignations and firings have hollowed out the ranks of experienced career lawyers at the department and as Attorney General Pam Bondi and her leadership team team have signaled little patience for dissent within the workforce, including by suspending a government attorney who admitted in court that the deportation of a Maryland man to a notorious El Salvador prison was a mistake.

“The Trump administration has unleashed an all-out assault on these public servants, who are now facing attacks on their employment, their integrity, their well-being, and even their safety,” Stacey Young, a lawyer who left the Justice Department in January and is now leading a group that advocates for department employees, told lawmakers at a hearing convened by members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees.

The warnings were stark, with lawyers who spent years at the Justice Department recounting their experiences with unprecedented political pressure that they said made them deeply uneasy and obliterated the institution’s norms.

Oyer decried what she described as the “callous cruelty with which DOJ leadership is treating dedicated public servants.” She testified about being abruptly fired without explanation last month, one day after refusing to endorse the restoration of Gibson’s gun rights following a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, and being told security officers were waiting in her office to escort her out of the building.

She said Justice Department leaders tried as recently as Friday night to intimidate her into silence by dispatching armed deputy marshals to her house to deliver her a letter warning her against testifying, though she was able to forestall the arrival of the officers at her home.

“The letter was a warning to me about the risks of testifying here today. But I am here because I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at the Department of Justice,” Oyer said.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on Oyer’s testimony. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has previously dismissed Oyer’s statements as inaccurate, without elaborating. The department attempted to invoke executive privilege to prevent Oyer from telling Congress about the circumstances of her departure. The legal principle broadly refers to a president’s power to keep information from the courts, Congress and the public to protect the confidentiality of presidential decision-making. Her lawyer, Michael Bromwich, said the argument that her testimony was barred by executive privilege was “completely without merit.”

Another witness was former public corruption prosecutor who resigned under protest amid the Justice Department’s dismissal of its case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Ryan Crosswell, who was not involved in the Adams case, described the events surrounding the move to dismiss the Adams case — so that the Democrat could help Trump’s immigration crackdown — as “among the saddest in the department’s history.”

“In a properly functioning justice system, any public official wishing to avoid prison has to live by one rule of thumb: obey our nation’s laws,” Crosswell said. “And this action raised an even more chilling question: Is the Justice Department that will drop charges against those who acquiesce to a political command a Justice Department that will bring charges against those who don’t?”

He recalled how a senior Justice Department official directed Crosswell’s section to identify two prosecutors willing to submit a motion seeking the dismissal of the Adams case, with the implicit offer of career advancement for those who did and potential punishment for those who did not. One ultimately stepped forward. Crosswell resigned.

“I didn’t have a job lined up or insurance lined up, but I’d rather be unemployed and not be insured than to work for someone that would do something like that to my colleagues,” he said.

ERIC TUCKER. Tucker covers national security in Washington for The Associated Press, with a focus on the FBI and Justice Department.

[admin]

Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)

Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A931

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[April 7, 2025]

PER CURIAM.

This matter concerns the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua(TdA), an entity that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. 10030 (2025). The President issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals “who are members of TdA.” Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a provisionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation. Minute Order on Motion To Certify Class in No. 25−cv−00766. On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for up to an additional 14 days. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2). The D.C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981).

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 Act and 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). Regardless 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. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). 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. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.

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.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163−164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). 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 afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.

For 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. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay.

The application to vacate the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted. The March 15, 2025 minute orders granting a temporary restraining order and March 28, 2025 extension of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 1:25-cv-766, are vacated.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A931

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[April 7, 2025]

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.

I agree with the Court’s per curiam opinion. Importantly, as the Court stresses, the Court’s disagreement with the dissenters is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers—all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review is available. The only question is where that judicial review should occur. That venue question turns on whether these transfer claims belong in habeas corpus proceedings or instead may be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. I agree with the Court’s analysis that the claims must be brought in habeas.

I add only that the use of habeas for transfer claims is not novel. In the extradition context and with respect to transfers of Guantanamo and other wartime detainees, habeas corpus proceedings have long been the appropriate vehicle. See LoBue v. Christopher, 82 F. 3d 1081, 1082 (CADC 1996); Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F. 3d 509, 512–513 (CADC 2009). That general rule holds true for claims under the Alien Enemies Act, the statute under which the Government is seeking to remove these detainees. See Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163, 171, and n. 17 (1948). And going back to the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, if not earlier, habeas corpus has been the proper vehicle for detainees to bring claims seeking to bar their transfers. See Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, 31 Car. 2, c. 2, §§11–12. Especially given the history and precedent of using habeas corpus to review transfer claims, and given 5 U. S. C. §704, which states that claims under the APA are not available when there is another “adequate remedy in a court,” I agree with the Court that habeas corpus, not the APA, is the proper vehicle here.

**********

Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A931

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[April 7, 2025]

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, and with whom JUSTICE BARRETT joins as to Parts II and III–B, dissenting.

Three weeks ago, the Federal Government started sending scores of Venezuelan immigrants detained in the United States to a foreign prison in El Salvador. It did so without any due process of law, under the auspices of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law designed for times of war. Between the start of these removals and now, a District Court has been expeditiously considering the legal claims of a group of detainees (hereafter plaintiffs), who allege that their summary removal violates the Constitution and multiple statutes. The District Court ordered a pause on plaintiffs’ removals until it could consider their motion for a preliminary injunction at a hearing tomorrow, on April 8. Still, a majority of the Court sees fit to speak to this issue today.

Critically, even the majority today agrees, and the Federal Government now admits, that individuals subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to adequate notice and judicial review before they can be removed. That should have been the end of the matter. Yet, with “barebones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection,” Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 2), the Court announces that legal challenges to an individual’s removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in habeas petitions in the district where they are detained.

The Court’s legal conclusion is suspect. The Court intervenes anyway, granting the Government extraordinary relief and vacating the District Court’s order on that basis alone. It does so without mention of the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the Government’s attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation. Because the Court should not reward the Government’s efforts to erode the rule of law with discretionary equitable relief, I respectfully dissent.

I

A

This case arises out of the President’s unprecedented peacetime invocation of a wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act. See Act of July 6, 1798, ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577. Enacted in 1798 by a Congress consumed with fear of war with France, the Alien Enemies Act provided a wartime counterpart to the widely denounced Alien Friends Act, which granted the President sweeping power to detain and expel any noncitizen he deemed “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” Act of June 25, 1798, 1 Stat. 571. Unlike the Alien Friends Act, which lapsed in disrepute as James Madison deemed it “a monster that must for ever disgrace its parents,” the Founders saw the Alien Enemies Act as a constitutional exercise of Congress’s powers to “declare War,” to “raise and support Armies,” and to “provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8,cls. 11–15.1

To that end, the Act grants the President power to detain and remove foreign citizens of a “hostile nation or government” when “there is a declared war” with such nation or when a “foreign nation” threatens “invasion or predatory incursion” against the territory of the United States. Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21. Before today, U. S. Presidents have invoked the Alien Enemies Act only three times, each in the context of an ongoing war: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.2

That changed on March 14, 2025, when President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to address an alleged “Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua,” a criminal organization based in Venezuela. See Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, Proclamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033. There is, of course, no ongoing war between the United States and Venezuela. Nor is Tren de Aragua itself a “foreign nation.” §21. The President’s Proclamation nonetheless asserts that Tren de Aragua is “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction . . . of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Based on these findings, the Proclamation declares that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua]” and are not “naturalized [citizens] or lawful permanent residents” are liable to “immediate apprehension, detention, and removal” as alien enemies. Ibid.

Congress requires the President to “mak[e] public proclamation” of his intention to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. §21. President Trump did just the opposite. In what can be understood only as covert preparation to skirt both the requirements of the Act and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began moving Venezuelan migrants from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers across the country to the El Valle Detention Facility in South Texas before the President had even signed the Proclamation. ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ 2025 WL 890401, *3 (D DC, Mar. 24, 2025). The transferred detainees, most of whom denied past or present affiliation with any gang, did not know the reason for their transfer until the evening of Friday, March 14, when they were apparently “pulled from their cells and told that they would be deported the next day to an unknown destination.” Ibid.

B

Suspecting that the President had covertly signed a Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, several lawyers anticipated their clients’ imminent deportation and filed a putative class action in the District of Columbia. App. to Brief in Opposition To Application To Vacate 9a (App. to BIO). They contested that Tren de Aragua had committed or attempted the kind of “‘invasion’” or “‘predatory incursion’” required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. Ibid. They also asserted that it would violate the Due Process Clause to deport their clients before they had any chance to challenge the Government’s allegations of gang membership. Id., at 26a. The plaintiffs did not seek release from custody, but asked the court only to restrain the Government’s planned deportations under the Proclamation. Id., at 9a, 29a.

In the early morning of March 15, the District Court informed the Government of the lawsuit and scheduled an emergency hearing. Despite knowing of plaintiffs’ claim that it would be unlawful to remove them under the Proclamation, the Government ushered the named plaintiffs onto planes along with dozens of other detainees, all without any opportunity to contact their lawyers, much less notice or opportunity to be heard. See 2025 WL 890401, *5; see also, e.g., Decl. of G. Carney in No. 25–cv–00766 (D DC, Mar. 19, 2025), ECF Doc. 44–11, at 2.

The Government’s plan, it appeared, was to rush plaintiffs out of the country before a court could decide whether the President’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful or whether these individuals were, in fact, members of Tren de Aragua. Plaintiff J. G. G., for example, had no chance to tell a court that the tattoos causing DHS to suspect him of gang membership were unrelated to a gang. Decl. of J. G. G., ECF Doc. 3–3, at 1. He avers that he is a tattoo artist who “got [an] eye tattoo because [he] saw it on Google” and “thought it looked cool.” Ibid. Plaintiff G. F. F., too, was denied the chance to inform a court that the Government accused him of being an “associate/affiliate of Tren d[e] Aragua” based solely on his presence at a party of strangers, which he attended at the “insistence of a friend.” Decl. of G. Carney, ECF Doc. 3–4, at 1.

C

Recognizing the emergency the Government had created by deporting plaintiffs without due process, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order that same morning. The order prohibited the Government from removing the five named plaintiffs, including J. G. G. and G. F. F., pending ongoing litigation. G. F. F., who had been “on a plane for about forty minutes to an hour” as “crying and frightened” individuals were forced on board, was subsequently retrieved from the plane by a guard who told him he “‘just won the lottery.’” Decl. of G. Carney, ECF Doc. 44–11, at 3.

The court then set an emergency hearing for 5 p.m. that same day, at which it planned to consider plaintiffs’ claim that temporary relief should be extended to a class of all noncitizens subject to the anticipated Proclamation. See 2025 WL 890401, *4. Despite notice to the Government of the Court’s scheduled hearing, DHS continued to load up the two planes with detainees and scheduled their immediate departure. See Tr. 12 (Mar. 15, 2025) (Two flights “were scheduled for this afternoon that may have already taken off or [will] during this hearing”); Tr. 9 (Apr. 3, 2025) (Government counsel agreeing that DHS was “acting in preparation of the proclamation before it was posted”). Not until an hour before the District Court’s scheduled hearing, and only moments before the Government planned to send its planes off to El Salvador, did the White House finally publish the Proclamation on its website.

At its 5 p.m. hearing, the District Court provisionally certified a class of Venezuelan noncitizens subject to the Proclamation. See Tr. 23, 25 (Mar. 15, 2025). It then issued an oral temporary restraining order prohibiting the Government from removing all members of the class pursuant to the Proclamation for 14 days. Id., at 42. The order did not disturb the Government’s ability to apprehend or detain individuals pursuant to the Proclamation or its authority to deport any individual under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. See ibid.; see 2025 WL 890401, *1. All it required of the Government was a pause in deportations pursuant to the Proclamation until the court had a chance to review their legality. See Tr. 4 (Apr. 3, 2025) (“All th[e] [TROs] did was order that the government could not summarily deport in-custody noncitizens who were subject to the proclamation without a hearing”). The court further directed that “any plane containing” individuals subject to the Proclamation “that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States.” Tr. 43 (Mar. 15, 2025).

D

Concerns about the Government’s compliance with the order quickly followed. Even now, the District Court continues to investigate what happened via show-cause proceedings. In those proceedings, the Government took the position that it had no legal obligation to obey the District Court’s orders directing the return of planes in flight because they were issued from the bench. See Tr. 17 (Mar. 17, 2025) (“[O]ral statements are not injunctions”). Of course, as the Government well knows, courts routinely issue rulings from the bench, and those rulings can be appealed, including to this Court, in appropriate circumstances.3

The District Court, for its part, has surmised that “the Government knew as of 10 a.m. on March 15 that the Court would hold a hearing later that day,” yet it “hustled people onto those planes in hopes of evading an injunction or perhaps preventing [individuals] from requesting the habeas hearing to which the Government now acknowledges they are entitled.” 2025 WL 890401, *5. Rather than turn around the planes that were in the air when the Court issued its order, moreover, the Federal Government landed the planes full of alleged Venezuelan nationals in El Salvador and transferred them directly into El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). Ibid.

Deportation directly into CECOT presented a risk of extraordinary harm to these Plaintiffs. The record reflects that inmates in Salvadoran prisons are “‘highly likely to face immediate and intentional life-threatening harm at the hands of state actors.’” Id., at *16 (quoting App. to BIO258a). CECOT detainees are frequently “denied communication with their relatives and lawyers, and only appear before courts in online hearings, often in groups of several hundred detainees at the same time.” App. to BIO 260a. El Salvador has boasted that inmates in CECOT “‘will never leave,’” ibid., and plaintiffs present evidence that “inmates are rarely allowed to leave their cells, have no regular access to drinking water or adequate food, sleep standing up because of overcrowding, and are held in cells where they do not see sunlight for days,” 2025 WL 890401, *16. One scholar attests that an estimated 375 detainees have died in Salvadoran prisons since March 2022. Ibid.

What if the Government later determines that it sent one of these detainees to CECOT in error? Or a court eventually decides that the President lacked authority under the Alien Enemies Act to declare that Tren de Aragua is perpetrating or attempting an “invasion” against the territory of the United States? The Government takes the position that, even when it makes a mistake, it cannot retrieve individuals from the Salvadoran prisons to which it has sent them. See Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25–cv–951 (D Md., Mar. 31,2025), ECF Doc. 11, at 7–9. The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.

E

Even as the Government has continued to litigate whether its March 15 deportations complied with the District Court’s orders, it simultaneously sought permission to resume summary deportations under the Proclamation. The District Court, first, denied the Government’s motion to vacate its temporary restraining order, rejecting the assertion that “the President’s authority and discretion under the [Alien Enemies Act] is not a proper subject for judicial scrutiny.” App. to BIO 71a. At the very least, the District Court concluded, the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed” on their claim that, “before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all.” 2025 WL 890401, *2. The D.C. Circuit, too, denied the Government a requested stay and kept in place the District Court’s pause on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act pending further proceedings. 2025 WL 914682, *1 (per curiam) (Mar. 26, 2025).

It is only this Court that sees reason to vacate, for the second time this week, a temporary restraining order standing “on its last legs.” Department of Education, 604 U. S., at ___ (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1). Not content to wait until tomorrow, when the District Court will have a chance to consider full preliminary injunction briefing at a scheduled hearing, this Court intervenes to relieve the Government of its obligation under the order.

II

Begin with that upon which all nine Members of this Court agree. The Court’s order today dictates, in no uncertain terms, that “individual[s] subject to detention and removal under the [Alien Enemies Act are] 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.’” Ante, at 2 (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163–164, 172, n. 17 (1948)). Therefore, under today’s order, courts below will probe, among other things, the meaning of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” 50 U. S. C. §21, and ask, for example, whether any given individual is in fact a member of Tren de Aragua. Even the Government has now largely conceded that point. Application 19.

So too do we all agree with the per curiam’s command that the Fifth Amendment requires the Government to afford plaintiffs “notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act, . . . within reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” Ante, at 3. That means, of course, that the Government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025. Nor can the Government “immediately resume” removing individuals without notice upon vacatur of the TRO, as it promised the D.C. Circuit it would do. See 2025 WL 914682, *13 (Millett, J., concurring) (referencing oral argument before that court). To the extent the Government removes even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court.

III

In light of this agreement, the Court’s decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous. Recall that, when the District Court issued its temporary restraining order on March 15, 2025, the Government was engaged in a covert operation to deport dozens of immigrants without notice or an opportunity for hearings. The Court’s ruling today means that those deportations violated the Due Process Clause’s most fundamental protections. See ante, at 3 (reiterating that notice and an opportunity for a hearing are required before a deportation under the Alien Enemies Act). The District Court rightly intervened to prohibit temporarily the Government from deporting more individuals in this manner, based on its correct assessment that the plaintiffs were likely entitled to more process. 2025 WL 890401, *2.

Against the backdrop of the U.S. Government’s unprecedented deportation of dozens of immigrants to a foreign prison without due process, a majority of this Court sees fit to vacate the District Court’s order.The reason, apparently, is that the majority thinks plaintiffs’ claims should have been styled as habeas actions and filed in the districts of their detention. In reaching that result, the majority flouts well-established limits on its jurisdiction, creates new law on the emergency docket, and elides the serious threat our intervention poses to the lives of individual detainees.

A

As an initial matter, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the District Court’s time-limited, interlocutory order. It is well established that, generally, “temporary restraining orders are not appealable.” 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3922.1, p. 90(3d ed. 2012). That rule is a general one because it gives way where a temporary restraining order risks imposing such an “‘irreparable . . . consequence’” that an immediate appeal is necessary if the order is to be “‘effectually challenged’” at all. Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981).

Here, the District Court ordered a 14-day halt on deportations pursuant to the Proclamation (extended once for 14 additional days) because it thought the plaintiffs were likely entitled to “individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all.” 2025 WL 890401, *2. The Government now admits that it must provide detainees with adequate notice, and it says they can then file habeas petitions in the Southern District of Texas to contest and stay their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Such proceedings, if adequately provided, necessarily mean that the Government cannot imminently deport the Plaintiffs under the Proclamation. So it is hard to see why the District Court’s temporary restraining order (of which only five days now remain) presented the Government with an emergency of any kind, much less one that required an immediate appeal.

B

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. Ante, at 2. The Court reaches that conclusion without oral argument or the benefit of percolation in the lower courts, and with just a few days of deliberation based on barebones briefing.

This conclusion is dubious. As an initial matter, the majority’s assertion that plaintiffs’ claims “sound” in habeas is in tension with this Court’s understanding of habeas corpus as, at its core, an avenue for a person in custody to “attack. . . the legality of that custody” and “to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 484 (1973). The plaintiffs in this case sued not to challenge their detention, but to protect themselves from summary deportation pursuant to the Proclamation. Indeed, because all of the plaintiffs were already in immigration detention under other statutes when the Government subjected them to the Proclamation, they “have repeatedly emphasized throughout this litigation that they ‘do not seek release from custody’” and are not “contesting the validity of their confinement or seeking to shorten its duration.” 2025 WL 890401, *8.

Nevertheless, the majority insists that plaintiffs’ claims “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’” of their confinement and removal under the Act, and so essentially amount to a challenge to their present physical confinement. Ante, at 2. It therefore analogizes this case to the line of cases beginning with Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477 (1994), where the Court held that individuals serving state criminal sentences cannot bring 42 U. S. C. §1983 suits to complain of “unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials” if a judgment in their favor would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” 512 U. S., at 480, 487. In such cases, habeas is the exclusive avenue for relief. Ibid. Plaintiffs’ claims, however, do not “imply the invalidity of” their detention, because their detention predated the Proclamation and was unrelated to the Alien Enemies Act. Thus, if they succeeded in showing that they could not be removed under the Proclamation, that would not result in their release from detention. Even in the context of §1983 challenges by criminal defendants, this Court has never “recognized habeas as the sole remedy, or even an available one, where the relief sought would ‘neither terminate custody, accelerate the future date of release from custody, nor reduce the level of custody.’” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U. S. 521, 534 (2011) (brackets omitted).

There is also good reason to doubt that Heck’s holding about the availability of relief under §1983 extends to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims challenging executive action under the Alien Enemies Act. The Heck bar arose from the Court reading an “‘implicit exception’” into §1983 to avoid “swamping the habeas statute’s coverage of claims that the prisoner is ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution.’” Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting 28 U. S. C. §2254(a)). This Court has never limited the availability of APA relief so narrowly. To the contrary, the APA has long been available to plaintiffs absent specific preclusion by Congress. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967).

Although the APA allows courts to review only agency action “for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,” 5 U. S. C. §704, this Court has long read that limitation narrowly, emphasizing that it “should not be construed to defeat the central purpose of providing a broad spectrum of judicial review of agency action.” Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879, 903 (1988); see also Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U. S. 137, 146 (1993) (“Congress intended by that provision simply to avoid duplicating previously established special statutory procedures for review of agency actions”). Indeed, in the mid-20th century, this Court repeatedly said that habeas and APA actions were both available to noncitizens challenging their deportation orders. See Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U. S. 180, 181 (1956) (“[E]ither remedy is available in seeking review of [deportation] orders”); see also Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U. S. 48, 50–51 (1955) (allowing for judicial review of a deportation order under the APA).

Against that backdrop, there is every reason to question the majority’s hurried conclusion that habeas relief supplies the exclusive means to challenge removal under the Alien Enemies Act. At the very least, the question is a thorny one, and this emergency application was not the place to resolve it. Nor was it the Court’s last chance to weigh in. The debate about habeas exclusivity remains ongoing in the District Court, in the context of pending preliminary injunction proceedings. If the District Court were to resolve the question in plaintiffs’ favor, the Government could have appealed to this Court in the ordinary course, and we could have decided it after thorough briefing and oral argument. In its rush to decide the issue now, the Court halts the lower court’s work and forces us to decide the matter after mere days of deliberation and without adequate time to weigh the parties’ arguments or the full record of the District Court’s proceedings.

C

The majority’s rush to resolve the question is all the more troubling because this is not one of those rare cases in which the Court must immediately intervene “despite the risk” of error attendant in deciding novel legal questions on the emergency docket. Department of Education, 604 U. S., at ___, (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 2). Recall that the dispute has now narrowed into a debate about “which procedural vehicle is best situated for the Plaintiffs’ injunctive and declaratory claims”: individual habeas petitions filed in district courts across the country or a class action filed in the District of Columbia. 2025 WL 914682, *29 (Millett, J., concurring). The Government may well prefer to defend against “300 or more individual habeas petitions” than face this class APA case in Washington, D.C. Ibid. That is especially so because the Government can transfer detainees to particular locations in an attempt to secure a more hospitable judicial forum. But such a preference for defending against one form of litigation over the other is far from the kind of concrete and irreparable harm that requires this Court to take the “‘extraordinary’” step of intervening at this moment, while litigation in the lower courts remains ongoing. Williams v. Zbaraz, 442 U. S. 1309, 1311 (1979) (Stevens, J., in chambers); see Department of Education, 604 U. S., at ___ (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8).

Meanwhile, funneling plaintiffs’ claims into individual habeas actions across the Nation risks exposing them to severe and irreparable harm. Rather than seeking to enjoin implementation of the President’s Proclamation against all Venezuelan nationals in immigration detention, detainees scattered across the country must each obtain counsel and file habeas petitions on their own accord, all without knowing whether they will remain in detention where they were arrested or be secretly transferred to an alternative location. Cf. Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U. S. 815, 860 (1999) (“One great advantage of class action treatment . . . is the opportunity to save the enormous transaction costs of piecemeal litigation”).

That requirement may have life or death consequences. Individuals who are unable to secure counsel, or who cannot timely appeal an adverse judgment rendered by a habeas court, face the prospect of removal directly into the perilous conditions of El Salvador’s CECOT, where detainees suffer egregious human rights abuses. See supra, at 7–8. Anyone the Government mistakenly deports in its piecemeal and rushed implementation of the challenged Proclamation will face the same grave risks. Cf. Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25–cv– 951 (D Md., Mar. 31, 2025), ECF Doc. 11, at 3.

The stakes are all the more obvious in light of the Government’s insistence that, once it sends someone to CECOT, it cannot be made to retrieve them. Ibid. The Government is at this very moment seeking emergency relief from an order requiring it to facilitate the return of an individual the Government concededly removed to CECOT “because of an administrative error.” Id., at 5; see Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Immediate Administrative Stay in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25–1345 (CA4, Apr. 5, 2025), ECF Doc. 3–1, at 2 (“No federal court has the power to command the Executive to engage in a certain act of foreign relations . . .”). The Government’s resistance to facilitating the return of individuals erroneously removed to CECOT only amplifies the specter that, even if this Court someday declares the President’s Proclamation unlawful, scores of individual lives may be irretrievably lost.

More fundamentally, this Court exercises its equitable discretion to intervene without accounting for the Government noncompliance that has permeated this litigation to date. The maxim that “‘he who comes into equity must come with clean hands’” has long guided this Court’s exercise of equitable discretion. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U. S. 806, 814 (1945). While “‘equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives’” as to other matters, “it does require that they shall have acted fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the controversy in issue.” Id., at 814–815 (citing Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U. S. 240, 245 (1933)).

Far from acting “fairly” as to the controversy in District Court, the Government has largely ignored its obligations to the rule of law. From the start, the Government sought to avoid judicial review, “hustl[ing] people onto those planes” without notice or public Proclamation apparently “in the hopes of evading an injunction or perhaps preventing them from requesting the habeas hearing to which the Government now acknowledges they are entitled.” 2025 WL 890401, *5. That the District Court is engaged in a sincere inquiry into whether the Government willfully violated its March 15, 2025 order to turn around the planes should be reason enough to doubt that the Government appears before this Court with clean hands. That is all the more true because the Government has persistently stonewalled the District Court’s efforts to find out whether the Government in fact flouted its express order. See Tr. 4–5 (Mar. 15, 2025); Tr. 6–9 (Mar. 17, 2025).

* * *

The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this. I respectfully dissent.

**********

Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)

JACKSON, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A931

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[April 7, 2025]

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting.

I join JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent in full and would deny the application for all the reasons she explains. I write separately to question the majority’s choice to intervene on the eve of the District Court’s preliminary-injunction hearing without scheduling argument or receiving merits briefing. This fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.

The President of the United States has invoked a centuries-old wartime statute to whisk people away to a notoriously brutal, foreign-run prison. For lovers of liberty, this should be quite concerning. Surely, the question whether such Government action is consistent with our Constitution and laws warrants considerable thought and attention from the Judiciary. That was why the District Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent immediate harm to the targeted individuals while the court considered the lawfulness of the Government’s conduct. But this Court now sees fit to intervene, hastily dashing off a four-paragraph per curiam opinion discarding the District Court’s order based solely on a new legal pronouncement that, one might have thought, would require significant deliberation.

When this Court decides complex and monumental issues, it typically allows the lower courts to address those matters first; it then receives full briefing, hears oral argument, deliberates internally, and, finally, issues a reasoned opinion. Those standard processes may not always yield correct results. But when we deviate from them, the risk of error always substantially increases. Today’s rushed conclusion—that those challenging the Government’s action can only pursue their claims through habeas—is Exhibit A.

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.

_______________

Notes:

1 Letter from J. Madison to T. Jefferson (May 20, 1798), in 30 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 358 (B. Oberg ed. 2003); see also Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolution, in The Book of the Constitution 52 (E. Williams ed. 1833).

2 Lockington v. Smith, 15 F. Cas. 758, 758–759 (No. 8,448) (CC Pa.1817) (discussing the War of 1812 proclamation); Declaring the Existence of a State of War With the German Empire and Setting Forth Regulations Prescribing Conduct Toward Alien Enemies, Proclamation No. 1364, 40 Stat. 1650 (World War I); Alien Enemies—Japanese, Proclamation No. 2525, 55 Stat. 1700 (World War II).

3 See, e.g., United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U. S. 146, 154 (1961) (hearing Government’s direct appeal from oral ruling); Evans v. Michigan, 568 U. S. 313, 320 (2013) (relying on lower court’s oral ruling); see also Wright v. Continental Airlines Corp., 103 F. 3d 146 (CA10 1996) (Table) (oral ruling was binding on parties); In re Justice, 172 F. 3d 876 (CA9 1999) (Table) (oral order was binding and effective even when written order was never entered); Ueckert v. Guerra, 38 F. 4th 446, 451–452 (CA52022) (oral ruling final and appealable even where district court never issued written judgment).