We all know where this one is headed. We have told you repeatedly: Mr. Abrego Garcia will win damages from Tangerine 2.0, and his feckless agencies' heads. And he will choose where he will live, as a free man, with his family -- next.
He will soon be a millionaire, due to Trumpian malfeasance. But it will come from taxpayer coffers. Charming. Here is a bit of the latest clearly correct -- and powerful -- argument:
. . .In opposing Petitioner Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s request to conduct limited discovery, the Government continues to pursue arguments that this Court has rejected time and again. To accept the Government’s arguments, one must disregard nearly all of the Court’s prior rulings here and in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-cv-00951 (“Abrego Garcia I”). Although doing so allows the Government to feign ignorance of its prior conduct, it does not rewrite the record or Abrego Garcia’s showing of good cause that warrants limited discovery here. The Court should grant Abrego Garcia’s motion.
As the Court recognized at the May 12 hearing, three claims are ripe for resolution: Count One (that the Government’s disregard of Abrego Garcia’s designation of Costa Rica violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)), Count Three (that the Government’s efforts to remove Abrego Garcia elsewhere violates due process), and Count Four (that the Government’s efforts to remove Abrego Garcia elsewhere violates § 1231(b)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16). ECF No. 176 at 8:8–9:4. . . .
[T]he Government [argues again] that Abrego Garcia’s claims are jurisdictionally barred by U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9) and (g). The Government first raised these arguments back in April 2025. This Court, and the Fourth Circuit, have repeatedly rejected them because he is not challenging the Attorney General’s exercise of lawful discretion to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. See ECF No. 110 at 15–17; Abrego Garcia I, ECF No. 31 at 7–16; Abrego Garcia I, ECF No. 238 at 12–14; Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 2025 WL 1021113, at *2–3 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2025) (Thacker, J., concurring). The Government has persisted in advancing this position, including at ECF Nos. 28, 72, 115, 142, 159, 160, 170, 184. Here, again, Abrego Garcia respectfully requests that the Court deem his prior responses, including at ECF Nos. 32, 88, 118, 144, incorporated here by reference. . . .
The Government also argues that habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle for Counts One, Three, and Four. See ECF 181 (“Opp.”) 7–8, 11–12. That is wrong. These claims challenge unlawful non-discretionary actions by the Government—such as its disregard of § 1231 and due process -- in its pursuit of Abrego Garcia’s immigration confinement and removal. Such claims sound in habeas because they necessarily imply the invalidity of the Government’s efforts to place Abrego Garcia in immigration detention and remove him to Liberia or other third countries. See Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 671–73 (2025) (holding that challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in habeas because they necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement and removal under that Act); see also id. at 674 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“[G]oing back to the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, if not earlier, habeas corpus has been the proper vehicle for detainees to bring claims seeking to bar their transfers.”).
Abrego Garcia may therefore take discovery on a showing of “good cause” -- i.e., “a specific allegation that shows reason to believe that [he] may be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief.” Quesinberry v. Taylor, 162 F.3d 273, 279 (4th Cir. 1998); see Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); Juniper v. Zook, 876 F.3d 551, 572 n.9 (4th Cir. 2017); Habeas Rule 6(a). . . .
Onward, resolutely.
नमस्ते
































