LightNews LightNews
maryprice.bsky.social
@maryprice.bsky.social
15 followers 27 following 0 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
mjsdc.bsky.social
Picking up on this point, Justice Sotomayor writes in dissent:

"To the extent the Government removes even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court. "
So too do we all agree with the per curiam’s command that the Fifth Amendment requires the Government to afford plaintiffs “notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act, . . . within reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” Ante, at 3. That means, of course, that the Government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025. Nor can the Government “immediately resume” removing individuals without notice upon vacatur of the TRO, as it promised the D. C. Circuit it would do. See 2025 WL 914682, *13 (Millett, J., concurring) (referencing oral argument before that court). To the extent the Government removes even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court.
April 7, 2025 at 11:06 PM