In JGG v. Trump–the case in which #SCOTUS sent the #AEA litigation out of the DC District–SCOTUS specifically said that #habeas could be used to review &, if necessary, preclude AEA removal. It’s not limited to discharge.

In fact, JGG seemed to indicate the case had to be treated as habeas litigation BECAUSE it sought “injunctive & declaratory relief against the implementation of, & [detainee] removal under, the Proclamation.”

And new from the #ACLU this morning, they argue that the district court ruling demonstrates the need for the injunction (#Trump claims opposite)

“The district court's decision underscores the need for this Court to maintain its injunction while this matter proceeds in the lower courts, & either to grant certiorari or to provide guidance on class certification & the contours of meaningful notice under JGG.

The unusual ruling came amid concerns that #deportations to #ElSalvador’s … #CECOT, might be permanent. Justices Samuel Alito & Clarence Thomas dissented.

3 weeks later, the admin said that the time ought to be up.

“That 3-week time frame constitutes more than adequate opportunity to pursue judicial relief under any standard. Thus, no putative class member now has any plausible claim to denial of notice or opportunity to be heard,”Sauer said.

Even though the admin has made the dispute primarily about universal injunctions, some court observers have said the justices could decide to rule on the legality of #Trump's order anyway.

It is unusual for #SCOTUS "to be considering an emergency application in this context," University of Chicago #law professor William Baude said.

"Because of that, we won't know what the court is going to focus on until the oral arguments start," Baude added.

The scope of an injunction is significant, the #DOJ told #SCOTUS, & ensuring that lower courts do not act beyond their limited judicial power "is just as critical as merits review," meaning an assessment of an action's legality.

Some #legal experts said the cases differ for numerous reasons. For instance, they said, the Idaho case involved one state, not a presidential #ExecutiveOrder applying nationally.

In that case, called Labrador v. Poe, Idaho asked #SCOTUS to let the state enforce a Republican-backed ban on gender-affirming care for #transgender minors after a federal judge blocked it as #unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, over the dissent of its three liberal members, granted Idaho's request that the statewide injunction be pared back to cover only the transgender plaintiffs who actually sued.

"An infant would be a #UnitedStates #citizen & full member of society if born in New Jersey, but a deportable noncitizen if born in Tennessee," the plaintiffs in the Maryland case told the justices.

The #DOJ cited #SCOTUS’ action in a case last year to back up its request to narrow the injunctions.

"The need for this court's intervention has become urgent as universal injunctions have reached tsunami levels," the #DOJ said in a written filing.

[it’s the illegal Executive Orders & actions that have reached tsunami levels]

If #SCOTUS agrees to scale back the #judicial blocks, it could lead to a nation geographically fractured between places where babies are born w/automatic #citizenship & places where they are not, the plaintiffs said.

The #DOJ said the issuance of broad #judicial injunctions has bedeviled admins of both parties, Republican & Democratic, & must be urgently rectified by #SCOTUS. #Trump himself on March 20 called the situation "toxic" & urged the #SupremeCourt to act.

Since Trump returned to office, many of his numerous #ExecutiveOrders & other initiatives have been impeded by #judges, including through universal injunctions.

At #SCOTUS, the admin has targeted only the universal scope of the injunctions, content to leave them in place to protect only the people who sued as well as the residents of the 22 states, assuming SCOTUS finds that these states have the necessary legal standing to bring their cases. That outcome would let #Trump's order go into effect in the 28 states that did not sue, aside from any plaintiffs from those states.

#SCOTUS may do so "without considering the underlying #merits" of #Trump's action, the admin asserted.

That approach would set up the possibility of the court, which has as a 6-3 conservative majority, allowing broad enforcement of the #policy without assessing whether or not it is #legal.

The matter came to the court on a compressed timeline & with minimal written briefing.

But in an emergency filing, #Trump's admin has focused #SCOTUS' attention not on the legality of the action by Trump but rather on the permissibility of the actions by the 3 #judges - whether federal judges have the power to issue broad orders that block challenged polices on a nationwide, or "universal," basis.

The admin asked the court to narrow the injunctions to let the govt enforce Trump's directive to the greatest extent possible while the legal fight over the #policy plays out.

@w7voa

D’ya think maybe Roberts is having buyers’ remorse for his ruling giving a lifelong criminal a free pass from prosecution, for virtually anything he does as President

Once a man is king, there is no longer any need for courts and judges.
How did Roberts not realize that, aside from awarding kingly powers to a lifelong criminal, he was threatening the status of the judiciary, including himself

Roberts is the architect of his own destruction. #scotus