As usual, excellent and understandable summaries of these two cases. Gabe, I don't know how you find time for all the excellent coverage you provide on so many diverse stories each day.
I would like to add, though, that since the point of selecting the District of Columbia as venue for the JGG case was at least partly the likelihood of a sympathetic district judge's being appointed (which is what occurred) the 5-4 holding in the Supreme Court would seem to be a devastating blow to the plaintiffs and future plaintiffs. Forum shopping works both ways. If a writ of habeas corpus requires that the case be filed by an individual in the district in which he is being imprisoned, this means that the administration can simply hold the prisoner in a district with a sympathetic judge. There are Federal District Courts in Texas which contain only a single fulltime judge. So instead of almost certain defeats in the D.C. District and the D.C. Circuit, the administration can look forward to a huge likelihood of sympathetic judges in Texas along with the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overseeing those lower courts. This is not just a technicality. There is no more powerful weapon against a court than to rule that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, which is what the 5-4 ruling in JGG expressly provided as they stripped Boasberg of the case. So the forum shopping in these cases is over for the plaintiffs. They will be filing wherever the administration happens to be holding the prisoners. And a class action has also been expressly eliminated as a possibility since habeas corpus is the sole remedy and habeas corpus must be filed by an individual not a class. I don't see much light at the end of the tunnel for the plaintiffs in this case. I also find it interesting that in the last few Supreme Court TRO rulings either Roberts or Barrett has been in the majority (making the majority possible, in fact). So whenever these two agree on something it would appear that they will be the power brokers. When they disagree the conservative side will win.
The judges on these cases are randomly selected by lottery Boasberg is middle of the road to conservative He has served in the past on the FISA and Alien terrorist courts
Also the intelligence community has determined with moderate confidence the Venezuelan gang has loose connections with the government
If we base it on that there would be a large amount of American politicians and "crooks" deported
An in depth study found that 70% of deportees had no connections
Knowing that the minority would rightly be alarmed that the Court would rule in JGG without full briefing and argument, Roberts made a deal. He would vote with the majority on this one but only if Noem v. Garcia went to the Court fully briefed, etc. Roberts knows that Garcia will be is a very difficult case for the government to win and he want the decision to be free of error. And assuming Garcia wins and the government has to bring him back, doesn’t that serve as precedent for bringing the Venezualans back?
As I have said before, if nothing else Trump’s actions require us to brush up on things like “the Great Writ.” The actions may have to be brought in a conservative jurisdiction but Kavenaugh’s assent seems to insure that there will be a determination of whether Trump can rely on his directive. A quibble, Justice Barrett only joined the dissent in particular parts.
Thank you, Gabe. This is excellent and easy to understand reporting and perspective. It is nice to see unanimity from SCOTUS on the issue of judicial review.
As usual, excellent and understandable summaries of these two cases. Gabe, I don't know how you find time for all the excellent coverage you provide on so many diverse stories each day.
I would like to add, though, that since the point of selecting the District of Columbia as venue for the JGG case was at least partly the likelihood of a sympathetic district judge's being appointed (which is what occurred) the 5-4 holding in the Supreme Court would seem to be a devastating blow to the plaintiffs and future plaintiffs. Forum shopping works both ways. If a writ of habeas corpus requires that the case be filed by an individual in the district in which he is being imprisoned, this means that the administration can simply hold the prisoner in a district with a sympathetic judge. There are Federal District Courts in Texas which contain only a single fulltime judge. So instead of almost certain defeats in the D.C. District and the D.C. Circuit, the administration can look forward to a huge likelihood of sympathetic judges in Texas along with the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overseeing those lower courts. This is not just a technicality. There is no more powerful weapon against a court than to rule that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, which is what the 5-4 ruling in JGG expressly provided as they stripped Boasberg of the case. So the forum shopping in these cases is over for the plaintiffs. They will be filing wherever the administration happens to be holding the prisoners. And a class action has also been expressly eliminated as a possibility since habeas corpus is the sole remedy and habeas corpus must be filed by an individual not a class. I don't see much light at the end of the tunnel for the plaintiffs in this case. I also find it interesting that in the last few Supreme Court TRO rulings either Roberts or Barrett has been in the majority (making the majority possible, in fact). So whenever these two agree on something it would appear that they will be the power brokers. When they disagree the conservative side will win.
The judges on these cases are randomly selected by lottery Boasberg is middle of the road to conservative He has served in the past on the FISA and Alien terrorist courts
Also the intelligence community has determined with moderate confidence the Venezuelan gang has loose connections with the government
If we base it on that there would be a large amount of American politicians and "crooks" deported
An in depth study found that 70% of deportees had no connections
Tatoos really
Knowing that the minority would rightly be alarmed that the Court would rule in JGG without full briefing and argument, Roberts made a deal. He would vote with the majority on this one but only if Noem v. Garcia went to the Court fully briefed, etc. Roberts knows that Garcia will be is a very difficult case for the government to win and he want the decision to be free of error. And assuming Garcia wins and the government has to bring him back, doesn’t that serve as precedent for bringing the Venezualans back?
Sorry hit send before the final thought: which is really what they were trying to achieve in their suit in the DC District Court.
Thank you for all your hard work, Gabe. Here is our mourning (yes, I said Mourning), edition. Keep up the good work.
https://thistleandmoss.com/p/morning-edition-april-8th-2025-the
As I have said before, if nothing else Trump’s actions require us to brush up on things like “the Great Writ.” The actions may have to be brought in a conservative jurisdiction but Kavenaugh’s assent seems to insure that there will be a determination of whether Trump can rely on his directive. A quibble, Justice Barrett only joined the dissent in particular parts.
Thank you, Gabe. This is excellent and easy to understand reporting and perspective. It is nice to see unanimity from SCOTUS on the issue of judicial review.