Updated -- the able USDC Judge in Newark has ruled that Mr. Khalil's orders are immediately appealble. That mightily speeds the case along, but thus far, he has not ordered Mr. Khalil's return to Newark, from Jena, Louisiana -- in a private prison. His habeas petition though, may be properly heard in Newark, starting next week. End, update.
Yes -- much is likely to transpire in real time in the federal courts, tomorrow.
This one will be heard in Newark. But I cannot find a live link for the audio. We will see if someone is liveblogging from inside the courtroom tomorrow. Here is the bit of the excellent letter for Mr. Khalil, who is still being held in a private prison in rural Jena, Louisiana at the moment:
. . .As the Court explained, the gaping hole in [Tangerine 2.0's / Noem's] Respondents’ position is that it “does not reckon” at all with the clear text of a controlling federal statute. Op. 25. On appeal, Respondents would have no argument against the Court’s invocation of section 1631’s mandate to treat the petition “as if it had been filed in. . . the court to which it [wa]s transferred.” Op. 26. Given that statutory command, they would have no argument against the Court’s straightforward application of the Endo Rule. Op. 36–46. And they can no longer argue that the petition did not name Petitioner’s immediate custodian. Op. 56 n.32; see Second Am. Pet. (ECF forthcoming); see also Op. 46–63. . . .
[Trump and Noem] Respondents claim that the Court’s opinion decided an issue of “tremendous and recurring importance.” ECF 157. But a 1292(b) motion is not a petition for certiorari. And besides, the order is most important to one person in unique circumstances. The Court’s decision does not “affect[] every habeas matter brought.” Gustafson v. Williams, 2010 WL 4316750, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2010). It disturbs no federal policy. It does not bind the government in other cases anywhere, including in this courthouse. It does not put “issues of national security. . . at stake.” Padilla ex rel. Newman v. Rumsfeld, 256 F. Supp. 2d 218, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
It will not subject the government to discovery into war efforts, nor arguably affect military detention policy, after a court’s application of a brand-new Supreme Court constitutional test to a far-away theater of war. Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 620 F. Supp. 2d 51, 56 (D.D.C. 2009). True, the Court’s ruling might subject Respondents to litigation that it has a long shot of wiping out. But litigants raise jurisdictional objections and lose them all the time. . . .
These Noem people are. . . utterly shameless. And Un-American in their attempts to circumvent the rights we all possess -- to access the federal courts of this land. Onward.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment