Any attempt to detain him should have happened in 2019. That didn't happen. So he is no longer subject to detention, as a matter of statutory rights. Here's her much anticipated ten page ruling in full, and a bit:
. . .The matter at ECF No. 112 is now ripe for resolution. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Abrego Garcia’s request to convert the TRO to one for injunctive relief and clarifies that the Court’s habeas relief includes enjoining his re-detention under Zadvydas and its progeny, as previously articulated. . . .
To read the order otherwise, as [Noemites] Respondents suggest, would indeed rewrite the history of this case. It would restart Respondents “removal period” pursuant to § 1231, and by extension, eviscerate the removal period and the six years when Respondents did nothing to effectuate third-country removal. See ECF No. 110 at 7–14. Respondents reading would also conveniently erase this last year of Abrego Garcia’s detention and count none of it as relevant to the Zadvydas analysis. Because a “now for then” order cannot alter substantive rights or rewrite history, the Court must reject Respondents’ arguments. . . .
As to what this means for Abrego Garcia’s continued release, it secures rather than undermines it. The Court had previously articulated the many reasons why the teachings of Zadvydas demanded release. ECF No. 110 at 25–30. Those reasons, and the factual underpinnings for them, squarely apply now that Abrego Garcia has a final order of removal and withholding of removal to El Salvador as of November 2019. The Court incorporates the reasons articulated at ECF No. 110. . . .
Now you know -- grinning -- as expected. Onward, resolutely -- to the hearings in Nashville next week.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment