Mr. Abrego Garcia Is Garnering Some Very Fine Pro-Bono Legal Help, In Maryland, Tonight...

As we've long pointed out -- the sole purpose of Noem's -- and now Mullin's / Homan's attempts to send Mr. Abrego Garcia to the Sudan, or Liberia. . . is to inflict a cruel punishment upon him, for having the temerity to suggest he has a right to be free from... kidnapping. That reads directly on our Eighth Amendment, regardless of what the Congress originally wrote -- it is circumscribed by. . . the Constitution's guardrails.

Tonight several of the most learned immigration law professors in the nation have penned a "friend of the court" brief -- to help USDC Judge Xinis parse the contours of these constitutional questions.

Do go read all of this fine brief by the law professors -- but here's a bit:

. . .Removals to active war zones, for example, can expose individuals to conditions of violence and danger that constitute a “deliberate indifference” to a substantial risk of serious harm, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828, or that are “excessive in relation to” any legitimate regulatory purpose, Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538. Likewise, removals to foreign prisons place individuals in indefinite incarceration in facilities notorious for harsh conditions. And for individuals who have already been granted protections -- like asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture -- removal to a third country renders them functionally stateless -- unable to return to their countries of origin.

Removal under those circumstances also raises the risk that the receiving country could effectuate the return itself, sending those individuals back to their home countries where they could face death or torture. See Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-277, § 2242(a), 112 Stat. 2681-761, 2681-822, codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (stating that it shall be U.S. policy “not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”); see also 28 C.F.R. § 200.1 (providing that “[a] removal order. . . shall not be executed in circumstances that would violate Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” which prohibits refoulement). . . .

Onward now -- to a perfectly-parachuted. . . splashdown!

नमस्ते

नमस्ते