Mr. Khalil's case is looking more and more like that just decided in Ozturk v. Hyde (see below).
The detainee there was set free today. [Confidential nota bene -- to Mr. Roth: probably not a great idea to lecture a seasoned USDC Judge on how to run his docket.] Here are the latest fireworks in Newark's federal trial courts, though:
. . .TEXT ORDER:
On April 29, the Court afforded the Respondents an opportunity to unpack any venue arguments. See ECF 217. Doing so, see ECF 230, the Respondents [Noem/Rubio] have not moved the needle.
They have not explained whether and when the background jurisdictional rules -- applied here by the Court in its Opinion and Order at ECF 153 -- might be superseded in any habeas case by venue considerations.
And they have not persuasively explained why such venue considerations would favor dismissal in this particular case; here, venue considerations weigh on balance in favor of going forward in the New Jersey area, for reasons that are alluded to by the Petitioner, see ECF 243 at page 3, and that have previously been alluded to by the Court, see ECF 78 at page 26.
The Respondents have also used their venue letter, see ECF 230, to renew various jurisdictional challenges. The substance of those has been reached and resolved. (And the Court notes that its holdings on the two key jurisdictional questions -- as to habeas jurisdiction and as to jurisdiction-stripping -- now find added support in the Second Circuit's decision of this week. See Ozturk v. Hyde, 2025 WL 1318154 (2d Cir. May 7, 2025).)
To the extent the Respondents' letter at ECF 230 is focused specifically on arguments for lack of jurisdiction as to the newly-added aspects of the Third Amended Petition, the Court will reach and resolve those in due course.
For now, ECF 230, construed as a motion to dismiss for want of venue, is denied. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 5/9/2025. . . .
Flawless.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment