Soooo not classified information then? I wonder how that will go over with the judge given statements in yesterday's hearing.

Tons of conclusory statements in this affidavit. I’m sure the plaintiffs will point that out.

Lee v. Madigan from the Supreme Court (1959) is also important in determining what is the legal threshold for a "war" or invasion" or "hostilities. Either way, both important reads today.
supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...

Link here: www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...

Hassoun says the extraordinary power of indefinite detention for those suspected of terrorism should be construed narrowly and invoked rarely. TBD on what that means in this case. Public reporting doesn’t seem to raise the type of national security threats that the Hassoun decision talks about.

It’s publicly unclear what ICE is charging him with, but historically, ICE and DOJ argue that people detained on national security grounds (e.g. material support) can be detained indefinitely and are not eligible for bond hearings. (Hassoun v Searls in the 2nd circuit).

Respectfully, Garland v. Gonzalez is just about class wide injunctions. There are lots of current circuit and district court decisions holding that the Constitution demands a bond hearing for ICE detention (namely Black v Decker) in the 2nd circuit. Circuits are split on this issue though.

Interesting to see how that provision will play out against a legal challenge that it’s a separation of powers breach of the President’s foreign relations power… but who will have standing to bring that case? Maybe a national of a country that’s enjoined? Hawaii v. Trump looms large here

Hi Rebecca, For what its worth, overstaying a visa is largely not a crime. ("As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v. U.S. - SCOTUS 2012). I think verbiage matters a lot in this era. (Wanted to msg privately but couldn't figure out how)