Aufhebungsantrag der Regierung (motion to vacate [*])

Am Dienstag, den 17.03.2025 US-Zeit beantragte die Trump-Regierung mit folgendem Schriftsatz:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.26.0.pdf (35 Seiten)

beim District Court für den District of Columbia die Aufhebung dessen beiden (1 und 2) Beschlüsse von Samstag, den 17.03.2025 wegen Abschiebung vermeintlicher Mitglieder von Tren de Aragua unter Berufung auf den Alien Enemies Act.

„On March 15, 2025, the Court issued two orders that together enjoined—on a nationwide basis—the removal of aliens associated with Tren de Aragua (‚TdA‘), a designated foreign terrorist organization (‚FTO‘), under the Alien Enemies Act (‚AEA‘). These orders are an affront to the President’s broad constitutional and statutory authority to protect the United States from dangerous aliens who pose grave threats to the American people. For a host of reasons, the Court lacks the power to review or enjoin the AEA Proclamation, and must therefore dissolve its orders at the first available opportunity. […]. For these reasons, the Court should vacate both orders.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.26.0.pdf, S. 1 und 25 der gedruckten bzw. 9 und 33 der digitalen Seitenzählung)

Erwiderung (Response to motion) der Plaintiffs (Kläger/Antragsteller)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.44.0_2.pdf (42 Seiten)

Gliederung:

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

ARGUMENT

• I. The Court Can Reach the Merits of Plaintiffs’ Claims
  • A. The AEA [Alien Enemies Act] Cases Confirm the Justiciability of Plaintiffs’ Claims
  • B. The Political Question Doctrine Does Not Apply
  • C. Defendants’ Action Is Subject to Judicial Review Under the APA and in Equity
  • D. Plaintiffs’ Claims Need Not Be Brought in Habeas

• II. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits.

• • A. The AEA Does Not Authorize the President to Summarily Remove Plaintiffs from the United States
    • i. There is no “invasion” or “predatory incursion” upon the United States
    • ii. The purported invasion is not by a “foreign nation or government.”
    • iii. The Proclamation violates the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act: https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title8&edition=prelim]
    • iv. The Proclamation violates the specific protections that Congress established for noncitizens seeking humanitarian protections
    • v. The absence of all due process violates the AEA and Due Process

• • B. The Equitable Factors Weigh In Favor of Plaintiffs.
    • i. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the TRO [Temporary Restrainung Order] is dissolved
    • ii. The remaining equitable factors weigh decidedly in favor of continuing the TRO

• III. The TRO Is Not Overbroad

CONCLUSION

Mündliche Verhandlung

Die mündliche Verhandlung dazu wird am Freitagabend MEZ (2:30 p.m. EDT = 19:30 MEZ) stattfinden:

„The Court ORDERS that the Zoom hearing set for March 21, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. shall now take place in Courtroom 22A. Members of the public may attend in person or by telephone. Toll free number: 833-990-9400. Meeting ID: 049550816.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#minute-entry-419608045)

District Court-Richter Boasberg

Die Website zeteo.com berichtet über den beim District Court mit dem Fall befaßten Richter:

„On Tuesday, Trump ramped up the attacks on Boasberg on his Truth Social platform, calling him a “radical left lunatic of a judge” who is “crooked” and “a troublemaker and agitator.” He went on to call for Boasberg to be impeached – a sentiment shared by shadow president Elon Musk, who said on Twitter that articles of impeachment against Boasberg are “necessary.”
But here’s the thing: there is nothing left-wing about Boasberg. He is a former homicide prosecutor who was appointed to head the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Chief Justice John Roberts. Does that sound like a flaming liberal to you? Yes, as the Trump people keep pointing out, he was nominated by Barack Obama to the district court in 2011, but what they omit to mention is that the Senate voted unanimously, 96-0, to confirm him, and he had already been appointed as an associate judge nine years earlier by noted far-left president… George W. Bush.
And here’s what the Trump people don’t want you to know: on multiple occasions over the years, Judge Boasberg, this supposed “radical left lunatic,” has issued rulings that are very favorable to Trump and MAGA, and very unfavorable to the Democrats. Here are just five of them: […].“
(https://zeteo.com/p/judge-trump-hates-boasberg-deportations-what-to-know)

Die Schriftsätze für das parallele Appeals Court-Verfahren gibt es dort:

https://blogs.taz.de/theorie-praxis/die-schriftsaetze-fuer-das-appeals-court-verfahren-wegen-alien-enemies-act-tren-de-aragua-abschiebungen/ (Artikel von Mittwoch, den 19.03.2025).

[*] „from Latin vacatus, past participle of vacare“ (https://www.etymonline.com/word/vacate) = dt. u.a. leer, erledigt sein (http://www.zeno.org/nid/20002714035).