It has long been the law that in these sorts of contested, non-judicial-arrest warrant based detentions, the government cannot play tricks to hide the detainee -- and defeat challenges by alleging the challenging court has no jurisdiction. That was the central lesson of the Supremes' holding in Padilla v. Rumsfeld. And Kristi Noem admits it. She just claims. . . "well, since he's in Louisiana, let's just make all the lawyers go there."
She offers no compelling reason to hold him there -- other than the obvious (but unstated) one: it makes the process. . . the penalty, by keeping him from attending the birth of his child -- and secreting him away from his counsel.
. . .(“Our precedent likewise reflects an adherence to the general rule articulated in Endo, that the government’s post-filing transfer of a § 2241 petitioner out of the court’s territorial jurisdiction does not strip the court of jurisdiction over the petition.”).
Under those circumstances, the court where jurisdiction originally vested may retain the case. See Argueta Anariba, 14 F.4th at 446 (collecting cases). . . . [She goes on to say, though: "It is true that at the time Khalil’s original petition was filed, it could have been properly filed in this district. But the SDNY court erred in treating that fact as dispositive. . . ."]
These jamokes are all so. . . deadly tedious. Tedious. He will be ordered brought back up to New Jersey -- Newark, specifically. Onward.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment