As first posted on FB:
==================
Although 80 years old, the judge does write with coherent vigor, but IMO he is wrong.
1) He writes:
"The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not."
Not my understanding at all. Indeed, quite the contrary-- he has been held to be a member of MS 13-- WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY THE ORDER OF DEPORTATION WAS ENTERED.
" Regardless, he is still entitled to due process."
Which he has received!!!
"If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal)."
Maybe so, and maybe not and yes this is a key point. With MS-13 legally declared a terrorist organization, the basis for the order (wrongly made in the first instance IMO but I digress) is vitiated. Abrego is now legally considered to be a terrorist and as such the withholding order no longer applies.
"Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported."
Here we must get into the weeds a bit. The lawyer who made this apparently mistaken assertion (of course pounced upon by all those who cheered the rape of the due processes of our immigrtion laws) has been removed from the case because of her error (good faith or bad faith we do not know).
Of course the Pravdas, Progs, and Politicians who told us lie after lie during the administration of the corrupt and senile Biden in search of inciting and enabling the invasion of our country for contemptible and unAmerican reasons (illegal stacking of the vote now and in the future) do not circle back to make note of this point and bring it to the attention of we the American people.
"Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?"
a) It wasn't wrong, and
b) As properly and implicitly noted by SCOTUS's use of the word "facilitate"
*the initial action must come from El Salvador (not fg likely!) and
*the judiciary has no power/jurisdiction to compel the President here.
=======
But wait-- there's more!
"We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive."
Oh really?!? Exactly what should the executive branch have done?!? Blow it off?!?
"Cf. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024); Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000)."
Going deeper yet into the weeds, the "Cf" with which the citation begins means that the cases cited are NOT precisely on point. If you want to dig in and see what they say and report back to us, well then have at it.
