It is very hard to figure out what was being claimed, down in Jena, Louisiana, by Mr. Khalil's counsel -- but I strongly suspect it either relates to his physical well-being, or to the fundamental right to be present at his child's birth (even if only on a furlough) -- where he's not been charged with any violent crime at all. . . and is thus approaching a month without being charged or released -- under the general crim. pro. rubrics.
In any event, the judge has denied, hinting that this must come under the merits of the general habeas hearing set to be held next month, after more discovery is had. Here's that cryptic text only order, overnight:
. . .TEXT ORDER:
The Petitioner filed today under seal a motion [ECF 203], and made a follow-up sealed filing [ECF 204]. The Respondents opposed the motion, by a sealed filing this evening [ECF 205]. The motion is denied. Among other things, the second Lucas/Landano factor is not satisfied. See generally Ozturk v. Trump, 25 Civ. 374 (WKS), Document 104 at 63-64. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 4/20/2025. . . .
But do see page 64 on, of this decision, just published last week. It sets some tight parameters on what a federal judge is able to do, in the way of habeas bail / bonds, in response to claims by DHS/ICE that the person is being held on any federal immigration statute or rule. So onward we go. . . Do stay tuned.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment