Der United States Appeals Court für den District of Columbia hat gerade den Antrag (s. taz-Blogs vom 19.03.: Die Schriftsätze für das Appeals Court-Verfahren …) der Trump-Regierung abgelehnt, die am Samstag, den 15.03.2025 vom untergeordneten District Court – gleichfalls für den District of Columbia – erlassenen Temporary Restraining Orders wegen Abschiebungen auf der Grundlage des Alien Enemies Act und der am gleichen Tag veröffentlichten Tren de Aragua-Proklamation außer Vollzug zu setzen, abgelehnt:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41845/gov.uscourts.cadc.41845.01208724047.0.pdf (93 Seiten)
Damit bleiben Abschiebungen auf der Grundlage der genannten Proklamation und des dort in Bezug genommenen Gesetzes (Alien Enemies Act) vorerst weiterhin untersagt (bisher gibt es ausschließlich ‚Eil-Eil-Entscheidungen‘).
Es stimmten die Reagan/Bush-nomierte Richterin Karen LeCraft Henderson und die Obama-nominierte Richterin Patricia Ann Millett für die Appeals Court-Entscheidung und der Trump-nominierte Richter Justin Reed Walker gegen die Entscheidung. Der gleiche Appeals Court-Spruchkörper hatte kürzlich im Rechtsstreit über die Entlassung von Special Counsel Dellinger – ohne abweichendem Votum – gegen Dellinger und für die Trump-Regierung entscheiden (siehe: taz-Blogs vom 06.03.2025).
Zur vorausgegangenen mündlichen Verhandlung am Montag siehe:
Gliederung der heutigen Entscheidung:
Votum von KAREN LE CRAFT HENDERSON (Seite 2 – 30 der Datei)
I. BACKGROUND
- A. Statutory Background
- B. Factual & Procedural Background
II. JURISDICTION
III. THE STAY FACTORS
- A. Likelihood of Success
-
- 1. The District Court’s Jurisdiction
- 2. The Political Question Doctrine
- a. The Availability of Judicial Review
- b. The Scope of Judicial Review
- 3. The Alien Enemies Act
- a. Invasion
- b. Predatory Incursion
- 4. Issues Not Decided
- B. Balance of Harms & Public Interest
- C. The Scope of Relief
Votum von Patricia Ann MILLETT (Seite 31 – 71 der Datei)
[… Gliederungspunkte ohne Überschriften …]
Votum von Justin Reed WALKER (Seite 72 – 93)
I. The District Court’s Orders Are Appealable Orders
II. The Government Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits Because The Plaintiffs Cannot Sue In The District of Columbia
- A. The Plaintiffs’ Proper Cause Of Action Is A Habeas Petition
- B. The District Of Columbia Is Not The Proper Location For This Suit Because Of The Habeas-Channeling Rule And Habeas’ District-of-Confinement Rule
III. The Government Satisfies The Remaining Stay Factors
IV. Conclusion
Siehe auch den Überblick den Orin Kerr, Professor an der Standford Law School, gibt:
https://x.com/OrinKerr/status/1904999442459373989 und Folge-Tweets (mit Auszügen aus der Entscheidung als Fotos); vgl. ohne Fotos: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1904998340259139758.html?utm_campaign=topunroll – „Walker: There’s a right to judicial review here, but the proper lawsuit is a habeas [siehe taz-Blogs vom 22.03.2025, FN 6] petition.“ / „A habeas petition has to be filed in the district of confinement, which here is in Texas, not DC.“ (https://x.com/OrinKerr/status/1905004135495409801 / https://x.com/OrinKerr/status/1905004699184701614)
Siehe schließlich:
Sareen Habeshian, Alien Enemies Act deportations blocked by appeals court
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/26/venezuela-deportation-case-temporary-block
Devan Cole, Federal appeals court maintains temporary block on Trump’s use of Alien Enemies Act for deportations
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/alien-enemies-act-trump-dc-circuit-court-of-appeals/index.html
„Millett was also critical of the Trump administration’s argument that it did not violate Boasberg’s order from the bench earlier this month to immediately turn around any planes carrying migrants being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. […]. ‚I leave the merits of that argument for the district court to resolve in the first instance,‘ Millett wrote. ‚But the one thing that is not tolerable is for the government to seek from this court a stay of an order that the government at the very same time is telling the district court is not an order with which compliance was ever required.'“
(Siehe zu diesem Problem taz-Blogs vom heutigen Tage: Zitiert die Trump-Regierung das Gerichtsprotokoll sinn-entstellend?)
Michael Kunzelman, Appeals court won’t lift order that barred Trump administration from deportations under wartime law
https://apnews.com/article/trump-judge-boasberg-venezuelan-immigrants-e7cca03d3c47b7b443d5374679ff290b
„‚Lifting the injunctions risks exiling plaintiffs to a land that is not their country of origin,‘ she [Henderson] wrote. ‚Indeed, at oral argument before this Court, the government in no uncertain terms conveyed that — were the injunction lifted — it would immediately begin deporting plaintiffs without notice.'“
David Voreacos / Chris Strohm / Zoe Tillman, Block on Venezuelan Deportations Upheld by US Appeals Court
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/appeals-court-keeps-block-on-trumps-deportation-of-venezuelans
„The Justice Department could ask the full circuit court to reconsider the panel’s decision or request the US Supreme Court to immediately intervene.“
Alex Woodward, Appeals court rejects Trump’s attempt to throw out order that blocks deportations under Alien Enemies Act. Judge James Boasberg is temporarily stopping the administration from ejecting immigrants under the centuries-old wartime law
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-deportation-alien-enemies-act-court-order-b2722231.html
„the administration admitted in court filings that ‚many‘ of the people sent to El Salvador did not have criminal records, and attorneys and family members say their clients and relatives — some of whom were in the country with legal permission and have upcoming court hearings on their asylum claims — have nothing to do with Tren de Aragua.“
Vor dem District Court geht es unterdessen wie folgt weiter:
„Given Plaintiffs‘ 61 Notice, the Court ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs shall file a Motion to Extend the TRO by 5:00 p.m. on March 27, 2025, and Defendants shall file any Opposition by 12:00 p.m. on March 28, 2025; 2) Plaintiffs shall file their PI Motion by March 28, 2025; Defendants‘ Opposition shall be due by April 1, 2025; and Plaintiffs‘ Reply shall be due by April 4, 2025; and 3) The parties shall appear for a hearing on the Motion on April 8, 2025, at 3:00 p.m.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#minute-entry-420507735; Hyperlink hinzugefügt)
