All Things Trump: The Return Of The King

[L'Emmerdeur]

Case: J.G.G. v. Trump
1:25-cv-00766 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: March 15, 2025

Case Ongoing

This case challenged the Trump Administration’s authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to circumvent removal procedures and order the immediate removal of Venezuelan nationals from the United States. On March 15, 2025, five detained Venezuelan nationals filed this class action lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against President Donald J. Trump, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and the Department of State. Represented by the ACLU and Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs challenged the Administration’s invocation of the AEA to remove them from the United States without any opportunity for a hearing or judicial review. The AEA is a wartime measure that authorizes the removal of citizens from countries with whom the United States is at war. On March 15, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation declaring that the United States was “under invasion” by Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang and designated foreign terrorist organization, and invoking the AEA. The plaintiffs filed their complaint the same day, arguing that the defendants had exceeded their authority under the AEA and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment right to due process, and Habeas Corpus. The plaintiffs sought a temporary and permanent injunction, declaratory relief, writs of habeas corpus, and attorney’s fees. The case was assigned to Chief Judge James Boasberg.

Where's the conspiracy? The AEA is definitely not routine, and obviously open to challenges especially as it was used here. If we can't agree on that, we probably can't discuss anything.

https://clearinghouse.net/case/46232/

It's weaponized ignorance, failing to comprehend the concept of co-equal branches of government providing checks and balances on each other. The judiciary is one of those branches.

When the Christian zealot Kacsmaryk (a district court judge though not the chief judge of his district, unlike Boasberg) repeatedly ruled against Biden administration policies and issued injunctions that affected the entire country, no mouth-breathing right wing knuckleheads got all 'Hey, he doesn't have the authority to do that!!!' Let alone cooking up malicious conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit his authority.

These fuckers who're so intent on 'do your own research' don't bother to learn the most basic concepts of how the legal system functions, instead they swallow whole the lies and bullshit from right wing propagandists. It's ridiculous.

[Tero]

The poster lives in Norway.

[Tero]

Elsewhere:
They are disappearing people off the streets with people not in uniform and unmarked cars. It is just a matter of time until they try to disappear an armed individual not afraid to defend themselves.
If a person is not in uniform and doesn't present a warrant and/or doesn't have probable cause, is it illegal to resist?

[L'Emmerdeur]

In the case of the abduction of Ozturk, they covered the 'not in uniform' thing by having a uniformed goon stroll up after she was already in handcuffs. Failed on the warrant (most likely because they knew they wouldn't be able to convince a judge to issue one) failed to advise her of her rights. It's police state shit, but MAGA likes that.

[Cunt]

Boasberg again eh? What a coincidence. He sounds like a busy guy.

Trump declared an invasion. The good judge disagrees.

Who should get to decide?

Unless one or more of the five is clearly a case of mistaken identity or NOT a criminal of some kind, Boasberg just gets viewed by me as a good dad, trying to please his loving wife and darling daughter.

When it comes to the legal wrangling, I listen to a few lawyers who go over such contemporary cases. Most of them think this is one of those times where an elected President outranks a judge. I understand that there are disagreements, but if someone does disagree, just tell me what percentage of people illegally in the US should be immediately removed upon discovery?

[JimC]

The President can appeal, and then higher level courts get to make the decision. Presidential decrees are not immune from judicial rulings; a president needs to accept that, and appeal to a higher court if he wants to...

[L'Emmerdeur]

The President can appeal, and then higher level courts get to make the decision. Presidential decrees are not immune from judicial rulings; a president needs to accept that, and appeal to a higher court if he wants to...

Trump considers himself a king though, not bound by the laws pertaining to presidents. The Alien Enemies Act is clear--it addresses how a president can proceed in event of a 'declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government' (source: §21). The gang doesn't meet any definition of 'foreign nation or government.' Trump is deliberately using a spurious interpretation of the law to give cover to his unlawful actions.

In that same law it is also clear that if a person is accused of being an 'alien who becomes liable as an enemy' they will be given a hearing in court (source: §23). There were no hearings and in this Trump is nakedly ignoring the law and the US Constitution rather than using a spurious interpretation.

[JimC]

If he actually refuses to obey a court order, can he be charged with contempt of court, or would his presidential immunity kick in?

[Tero]

[Tyrannical]

In the case of the abduction of Ozturk, they covered the 'not in uniform' thing by having a uniformed goon stroll up after she was already in handcuffs. Failed on the warrant (most likely because they knew they wouldn't be able to convince a judge to issue one) failed to advise her of her rights. It's police state shit, but MAGA likes that.

She was picked up by ICE agents because she was in the country with out a valid visa.... because Marco Rubio revoked it because the Secretary of State has that right and it is not subject to judicial review. The 'judge' is just illegally delaying the inevitable.

Failed to advise her of her rights.... what rights are those? She's not being arrested for a crime and has no right to a hearing or an attorney. Though if she resisted she would have been arrested for resisting and then she would have gotten her rights read to her.

It used to be common sense that if you were a foreign exchange student that you should not be involved in local politics.

[Tyrannical]

If he actually refuses to obey a court order, can he be charged with contempt of court, or would his presidential immunity kick in?

The judge can pretend to hold in contempt, but can't actually do anything unless the executive branch choses to enforce the court ruling, and since they have discretion....... But of course it would get appealed to the Supreme Court whom I suspect will be very busy.

[Cunt]

. The 'judge' is just illegally delaying the inevitable.

If that turns out to be the case, I would wager there will be no negative consequences for that judge's illegal actions.

[pErvinalia]

Is anyone surprised? I hear Cunt approves.

[Sean Hayden]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe how she and her case have been handled since her visa was revoked absolutely is subject to judicial review. So yeah, he can revoke it --fine-- but the world after that ain't suddenly his to do with as he pleases.

--//--

While digging around for details I found this in another case:

We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. (Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343 U. S., at 587). Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.

542 U.S. 507
HAMDI ET AL. v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL.
No. 03-6696.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/542/507

I think it captures the spirit of the law as it is understood by the majority of Americans.

[L'Emmerdeur]

In the case of the abduction of Ozturk, they covered the 'not in uniform' thing by having a uniformed goon stroll up after she was already in handcuffs. Failed on the warrant (most likely because they knew they wouldn't be able to convince a judge to issue one) failed to advise her of her rights. It's police state shit, but MAGA likes that.

She was picked up by ICE agents because she was in the country with out a valid visa.... because Marco Rubio revoked it because the Secretary of State has that right and it is not subject to judicial review. The 'judge' is just illegally delaying the inevitable.

Failed to advise her of her rights.... what rights are those? She's not being arrested for a crime and has no right to a hearing or an attorney. Though if she resisted she would have been arrested for resisting and then she would have gotten her rights read to her.

It used to be common sense that if you were a foreign exchange student that you should not be involved in local politics.

This and other similar cases hinge on whether people within the borders of the US have constitutional rights. So who died and made Marco Rubio king? Ozturk has a right to free speech under the 1st Amendment. That means she has a constitutional right to express her opinion in a peaceful manner without being punished for it. You can read the opinion piece she co-authored, and then cite anything in it that indicates she's a threat to national security. Rubio can assert whatever he likes, but for now the principle of a republic of laws, not men still pertains in the US.

There are laws regarding how immigration status within the US is adjudicated. Ozturk has recourse to immigration courts--the Secretary of State is no more a king than the president is.

The Immigration Judges, as independent adjudicators, make determinations of removability, deportability, and excludability, and adjudicate applications for relief.
[source]

Finally, perhaps you might reread the 5th Amendment. Ozturk was deprived of her liberty without due process. She definitely has a right to a hearing in court, regardless of what Trump or Rubio might assert. Are you claiming that their powers are not restricted by the US Constitution?