DHS v D.V.D.

You know you done f’ed up when Kagan is siding with the conservative side of the court.

I voted to deny the Government’s previous stay application in this case, and I continue to believe that this Court should not have stayed the District Court’s April 18 order enjoining the Government from deporting non-citizens to third countries without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See DHS v. D. V. D., 606 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 9–18). But a majority of this Court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed. See United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 294–295 (1947); Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 24–26 (1887). Because continued enforcement of the District Court’s May 21, 2025 order would do just that, I vote to grant the Government’s motion for clarification.
— Justice Kagan

The gist of the issues is that the Supreme Court issued a stay regarding an inferior district court’s injunction stopping the Trump Administration from deporting criminal, illegal aliens. The 8 deportees in question have all been adjudicated guilty of violent crimes. Rape, rape of a child, murder, attempted murder and other crimes.

All of them have had not only full due process for a criminal alien, but also for somebody accused of a serious crime. They were found guilty.

After the court found them guilty, a final order for removal was issued.

These people were so despicable that their origin countries refused to take them back. This left the Administration with limited options. When a criminal alien is deported, the choices are to the last country they were in or their country of origin. If their country of origin and the last country refuses them entry, then it is the duty of the Administration to figure out what to do with them.

Since we can’t just execute them. Even though a wood chopper is the tool of choice for kiddy diddlers, that isn’t allowed under our morals.

The administration could just let them live in the comfort of a US jail/prison. Or they can deport them to a third-party country.

Nobody wanted these people. That is how bad they are. The Trump Administration negotiated with several countries before a couple agreed to take these monsters. We don’t know what it costs to be rid of them.

This inferior court judge decided that he was the person to set foreign policy and to decide how immigration policy should be.

Of course, he is in the First Circuit out of Boston. One of those 5 districts that issued 35 universal injunctions.

And this injunction was another universal injunction. Since this was before Trump v. CASA, universal injunctions had not been ruled unconstitutional.

Now, the left likes to play games with words. Trump is playing that even better. The injunction issued by the District Court’s injunction said that the DoJ could not deport these criminals. So the administration let the DoD deport them.

So the Administration followed the letter of the “law” but ignored the spirit. This Biden appointee, with less than 200 days on the federal bench, had a hissy fit.

He issued an order for remedial action against the Trump Administration. His order created new immigration policy. It set up new, never before used rules and methods. In short, he decided he was able to dictate to the Article II executive how immigration policy should be done.

The administration appealed to the First Circuit, which ruled against them. A foregone conclusion.

This was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a stay on June 23rd.

This stay allowed the government to deport non-citizens to third countries.

The same day the stay was issued, the inferior district court issued an order stating that the remedies that had been ordered were still enforce because the government had not challenged the remedies.

This led the government to go back to the Supreme Court looking for a “Clarification”. This is almost unheard of.

This is one of the parties telling The Court that their inferior court was disobeying a direct order.

The Court granted that clarification. Even Kagan thought it should be clarified and agreed it was correctly clarified.

The motion for clarification is granted. Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009) (explaining that a reviewing court’s stay order “divest[s]” the district court “order of enforceability”). Even if we accepted respondents’ characterization of the May 21 order, such a remedy would serve to “coerce” the Government into “compliance” and would be unenforceable given our stay of the underlying injunction. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 303 (1947); see id., at 295 (“The right to remedial relief falls with an injunction which events prove was erroneously issued and a fortiori when the injunction or restraining order was beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” citations and footnote omitted)).

If the injunction is stayed, then any penalties that were issued by the inferior court are also stayed.

This is actually another powerful opinion from the Supreme Court.

In J.G.G. v. Trump, the district court was found to lack jurisdiction over the case. The case was transferred to the appropriate court, through the district court of New Jersey. The New Jersey district court got the case and immediately transferred it to Texas. Honest judges are doing such a good job that we don’t even hear about the case anymore.

The judge in the D.C. district court found “probable cause” to find the Trump Administration in contempt of an injunction he did not have the jurisdiction nor authority to issue.

This current opinion, DHS v. D.V.D. will help in the J.G.G. v. Trump case.

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply