. . .MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioners'-Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). ECF No. [2]. Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and in order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction, [Trump] Defendants SHALL NOT REMOVE Petitioners from the District of Colorado or the United States unless or until this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order. See also Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate, et. al, Case No. 1:25-cv-881, D. Colo., ECF No. 11 at 4-5 (collecting cases); F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603 (1966); Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. New York Shipping Ass'n, 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992).
To the extent they have not yet done so, no later than today, April 14, 2025, Petitioners' counsel is directed (1) to serve Respondents with a copy of the TRO motion and accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado and by overnight mail; and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for Defendants shall promptly enter notices of appearance.
Defendants are further ordered to RESPOND to Petitioners' TRO motion by THURSDAY, April 17, 2025. See, e.g., Gurchiani v. Garland, No. 23-9588, 2025 WL 46446, at *5 n.11 (10th Cir. Jan. 8, 2025) (noting "importance of adversarial briefing").
The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a hearing on Petitioners' TRO motion on Monday, April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom A702 of the Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse. . . .
By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 4/14/2025. . . .
End, updated portion -- but this truly ties Tangerine's hands -- just as I suggested it would.
This is a new suit. And it is cleverly designed to be a winner -- besting the issues that bogged the prior one down in the Supremes.
But the goal here is to say that Trump/Noem/Rubio cannot deport humans without a full habeas / due process hearing, and the Constitution doesn't permit the government to force everyone into their favored West Texas courtrooms -- these must be heard where the putative deportee is found, and they must provide a meaningful ability to challenge the government's motions. Here's a bit:
. . .To date, the government has not indicated the type of notice they intend to provide or how much time they will give individuals before seeking to remove them under the AEA. However, in a hearing in the Southern District of Texas on Friday April 11, the government said they had not ruled out the possibility that individuals will receive no more than 24 hours’ notice; the government did not say whether it was considering providing even less than 24 hours. . . .
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling that challenges to the Proclamation must be brought in habeas, Petitioners file this action on behalf of a class in their district of confinement. All five of the original petitioners in the D.C. litigation have likewise filed class habeas petitions and motions for temporary restraining orders for putative classes. The first was filed on April 8, 2025 in the Southern District of New York on behalf of two of the five, and the second on April 9, 2025 in the Southern District of Texas on behalf of the other three. Within hours, both district courts granted ex parte requests for TROs, ordering that the named petitioners and putative class members should not be removed from the United States or transferred out of their respective districts. . . .
As several judges have already found, Petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge and they are at imminent risk of removal to El Salvador, where more than one hundred individuals alleged TdA members have already been sent pursuant to the Proclamation and where they potentially face lifetime incommunicado sentences in one of the most notorious prisons in the world. Numerous accounts, both in declarations and public news reporting, have raised serious questions about the validity of the government’s designations of people as “alien enemies,” with no process provided for anyone to contest those designations. A TRO is needed because there may not be sufficient time for this Court to intervene before people are put on planes to remove Petitioners from the United States. . . .
This is very smart lawyering: make the manifold procedural defects quite plain, front and center -- a 17th Century statute lacks 21st Century embedded due process protections (so those must now be hammered out, all new!); and when accorded full due process rights, most of these petitions, and petitioners, in habeas will prevail. Onward, grinning.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment