This Supremes' Temp Order Means FAR LESS Than Some Pundits Think: Venezuelans' Must Still Receive INDIVIDUALIZED Due Process Hearings...

Most of all, whether one is from Venezuela, or anywhere else -- if one is present on US soil, the purported asylee must receive a timely and meaningful individual due process hearing, before a judge -- before they may be removed. That is what the Supremes held in the JGG, and AARP cases, just days ago.

Second, it is temporary -- only while the trial court works on trying the case, may Noem, et al. make preparations for removing asylees. They cannot be removed, and each may challenge Noem's order as beyond her remit -- given Mr. Biden's prior creation of a quasi-property right, for these same Venezuelans, extending their non-removability, under his executive order, before leaving office (to 2026).

So -- rightly understood, in context -- this is simply a "go ahead and draw up your goofy papers" order -- in the end, no one can be removed without due process (unless there is very competent proof of violent terror activities). Here's today's "sturm and drang" order, as a PDF -- and in full-text, below:

. . .24A1059 NOEM, SEC., DHS, ET AL. V. NAT. TPS ALLIANCE, ET AL.

The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 31, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1766, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

This order is without prejudice to any challenge to Secretary Noem's February 3, 2025 vacatur notice insofar as it purports to invalidate EADs, Forms I-797, Notices of Action, and Forms I-94 issued with October 2, 2026 expiration dates. See 8 U. S. C. §1254a(d)(3).

Justice Jackson would deny the application. . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [And, from the USDC March 31 (Judge Chen's) order:] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . .[Noem, and] the government offer no evidence to counter Plaintiffs’ showing of irreparable injury. The government conceded at the hearing that it had no counter-evidence and no basis to doubt the bona fides of the factual declarations filed herein. Its main assertion at the hearing was that most of these facts are not relevant, an assertion the Court rejects. They are indeed relevant to the issue of irreparable injury, the public interest, and the balance of hardships. . . .

By the way, Justice Jackson is right: this is so unlikely to be a lawful removal attempt, that nothing should be done until the SF trial court gets to -- and decides -- the merits. But it is not the right to start loading planes with purported Venezuelans, any time soon. Not at all. Onward, grinning.

नमस्ते