Ich hatte zuletzt am 12. Mai über den Fall „Cristian“ berichtet und setze die bisherige Entwicklung als bekannt voraus. Am späten Montagabend MESZ kam die Entscheidung des 4. Appeals Court. Es ging um den Antrag der Trump-Regierung, die Entscheidung des District Court Maryland – durch eine von Trump nominierte Richterin -, die die Regierung verpflichtet,
-
die Rückkehr „Cristians“ zu erleichtern und dafür ein „good faith request … to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States“ zu richten,
für die Dauer des Appeal-Verfahrens außer Vollzug zu setzen.
Der Regierungsantrag wurde mit 2 : 1-Stimmen abgelehnt.
Die Mehrheit bilden die – von Biden nominierte – Richterin Benjamin und der – (nach vorläufiger Ernennung durch Clinton) von George W. Bush nominierte (vom Senat bestätigte und schließlich dauerhaft ernannte) – Richter Gregory, die Minderheit der – von Trump nominierte Richter – Richardson.
Das Votum von Richterin Benjamin
Das Votum von Benjamin, dem Gregory zustimmt, geht von S. 2 – 20.
Seite 13 und 14 der Entscheidung lauten:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178657/gov.uscourts.ca4.178657.34.0.pdf (S. 49)
Die von Benjamin genannten Entscheidungen zum Fall Abrego Garcia, die Benjamin auf den Fall „Cristian“ überträgt, gibt es an folgenden Stellen:
145 S. Ct. at 1018 [= Abrego Garcia II]
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf (4 Seiten)
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-CV-00951-PX, 2025 WL 1113440, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 15, 2025)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.79.0.pdf (8 Seiten)
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-1404, 2025 WL 1135112, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025) (hereinafter “Abrego Garcia III”)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0_5.pdf (7 Seiten)
Schließlich noch diese beiden Dokumente aus dem „Cristian“-Verfahren:
J.O.P., PACER No. 254 at 2
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.457483/gov.uscourts.mdd.457483.254.0_3.pdf (3 Seiten)
Diss. Op. at 36
Das ist das dissenting vote von Appeals Court-Richter Richardson (S. 36 derselben Datei wie das Votum von Benjamin).
Auf S. 15 f. heißt es:
„Last, the public interest lies with denying the Government’s motion to stay. Pointing to the Indicative Asylum Decision — which I discuss in the next section — the Government argues Cristian is a terrorist who cannot obtain asylum. ‚Perhaps, but perhaps not.‘ See Abrego Garcia III, 2025 WL 1135112, at *1. The Settlement Agreement provided that Cristian’s asylum application would be heard in person on the merits — not denied by default because Cristian had been removed from the United States and accused, in absentia, of charges to which he cannot practically respond. Cf. Abrego Garcia I, 2025 WL 1021113, at *6 (Thacker, J., concurring) (‚[U]pholding constitutional rights surely serves the public interest.‘) (quoting Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002)).
Judge Richardson views the equitable question differently. See Diss. Op. at 42–48. He contends that the equities favor the Government because Cristian cannot prove that he is not a terrorist. See, e.g., id. at 43. This gets things backward. Cristian’s injury arises from the fact that instead of having his asylum application adjudicated on the merits — as the Settlement Agreement guaranteed — he was summarily removed. The removal denied Cristian the chance to dispute on the merits the very accusations the Government now puts forth on appeal to justify its breach. The Government’s breach denied Cristian the benefit of the bargain and the process he was due.“ (Hv. i.O.; Hyperlink hinzugefügt)
Das Votum von Richter Gregory
Auf S. 21 – 26 ist das Votum von Richter Gregory, dem wiederum Benjamin zustimmt:
Er nimmt den Fall zum Anlaß sich mit Trumps Tren de Aragua-Proklamation auseinanderzusetzen, die nach Regierungsansicht die Vergleichsvereinbarung, die „Cristian“ vor Abschiebung ohne vorherige Entscheidung über seinen Asylantrag schützt, quasi hinfällig macht:
„I have severe difficulty in accepting that the invocation of the AEA can justify the voiding of all contractual obligations of the United States, particularly without any analysis of the legality of that invocation.“ (S. 23)
Was die Auslegung der Begriffe „invasion“ und „predatory incursion“ im Alien Enemies Act anbelangt, so schließt er sich der Richterin Henderson des Washingtoner Appeals Court sowie den District Courts für Südtexas und Colorado an: „I agree that ‚invasion‘ and ‚predatory incursion‘ require some type of military attack, evidence for which was present in all previous instances where the AEA was invoked.“ (S. 24)
Und dann sagt er:
„Turning to the text of President Trump’s recent Proclamation, I see no evidence of any kind to suggest any ‚invasion‘ or ‚predatory incursion‘ is afoot. […]. Thus, I would find that the AEA was illegally invoked in this case.“ (ebd.)
Das Votum von Richter Richardson
Schließlich das Votum von Richardson – es ist auf S. 27 – 49:
Er scheint sich vor allem daran zu stören, daß der District Court die Regierung verpflichtete, ein „a good faith request … to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States“ zu richten:
„the district court’s order requires the government to ‚facilitate‘ his return, and expands upon that verb to ‚include[] … a good faith request by Defendants to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States.‘ As I see it, that is not what the district court, this Court, or the Supreme Court approved in Abrego Garcia. Many options may be available to district courts seeking to craft appropriate relief in response to deportations they find unlawful. But directing diplomatic negotiations to the Executive Branch is not among them.“ (S. 27)
„Simply put, the district court ordered the Executive Branch to engage in diplomatic negotiations with a foreign power.“ (S. 31)
„argues at length that his situation justifies doing something to help him return. But Cristian does not mention — much less defend — the part of the district court’s order that expands upon ‚facilitate‘ to ‚include[] … a good faith request by Defendants to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States.'“ (S. 35; Hv. i.O.)
„Ordering the government to negotiate threatens the foreign policy interests of the United States.“ (S. 47)
„Still, it is in this case that the district court has directed the Executive to engage in specific diplomatic negotiations with a foreign power.“ (S. 49)
Zur Frage, wie die Vergleichsvereinbarung, um deren (eventuelle) Verletzung es geht, auszulegen ist (Schützt sie auch vor Abschiebung unter Berufung aus den Alien Enemies Act oder nur vor [bestimmten] anderen Abschiebungen?), sagt er vorsichtig:
„Caution was particularly warranted here because Cristian’s claim is dubious on the merits.“ (S. 38; Hv. hinzugefügt)
„And it [der District Court] did so to remedy government action that did not breach the agreement — unlawful though it may have been in other ways.“ (S. 41; Hv. i.O.)
Und unmittelbar schließend sagt er noch: „Because the injunction goes too far, and the government’s success on the merits is therefore all but assured, I would grant a stay.“ (S. 41; Hv. hinzugefügt) – goes too far (nicht: „ist grundsätzlich verkehrt“).
Interessant ist schließlich noch Fußnote 8 auf S. 46 f.:
„This is not to say that Cristian cannot challenge his removal and detention, if any, in another proceeding. Like anyone removed under the Alien Enemies Act, Cristian is entitled to the full measure of protection afforded by our due process jurisprudence. As in Abrego Garcia, if Cristian is confined, he could seek injunctive relief on the grounds that his removal was erroneous or that the proclamation is unlawful.“
Siehe auch:
Josh Gerstein / Kyle Cheney
Trump admin must seek return of wrongly deported man to El Salvador, appeals court rules. It’s the second time the Virginia-based court declined to intervene after lower courts ordered the administration to facilitate the return of improperly deported immigrants
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178657/gov.uscourts.ca4.178657.34.0.pdf
„The Trump administration could ask the full bench of the 4th Circuit to take up the issue or appeal to the Supreme Court. Spokespeople for the Homeland Security and Justice Departments did not immediately respond to requests for comment.“
