Again, Tangerine 2.0's over-reach is put down. Kristi Noem clearly knew better -- but licked Trump's boots, anyway.
It is now highly likely that DHS/ICE will be immediately ordered to return him to New Jersey -- to be able to confer with his lawyers during the litigation. And he is likely to be free, very soon. Here is USDC Judge Furman's decision, and a bit:
. . .At the heart of this case is the important question of whether and under what circumstances the Government may rescind a person’s lawful permanent resident status and remove him from the United States. It is raised by way of a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, that was filed on behalf of Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia University. On March 8, 2025, immigration authorities arrested and detained Khalil, a green card holder and the husband of a United States citizen, based on a determination by the Secretary of State of the United States that his “presence or activities in the United States. . . would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i). In his Petition, Khalil alleges that the Secretary of State made this determination to “retaliate against and punish” him for his “participation in protests” on and around Columbia’s campus “concerning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. . . .”
[T]he Court agrees. . . with Khalil that it should be transferred to the District of New Jersey, not dismissed or transferred to the Western District of Louisiana. These conclusions flow from the undisputed fact that, at 4:40 a.m. on March 9, 2025, when Khalil’s lawyer filed the Petition on his behalf, he was detained in New Jersey. A straightforward application of the district-of-confinement and immediate-custodian rules therefore dictates that Khalil’s Petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, not in this Court. Khalil makes various arguments in an effort to avoid that conclusion, most notably seizing on a concurring opinion in Padilla, in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, observed that he “would acknowledge an exception” to the district-of-confinement and immediate-custodian rules “if there is an indication that the Government’s purpose in removing a prisoner were to make it difficult for his lawyer to know where the habeas petition should be filed, or where the Government was not forthcoming with respect to the identity of the custodian and the place of detention. . . .”
And so, over to. . . Newark -- from Foley Square. Onward -- resolutely.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment