His
adviser Stephen Miller thinks the writ of habeas corpus (the
legal writ that ensures law enforcement produce a prisoner and justify their
detention before a court) is a “privilege,” which he insinuates the
administration might suspend if the courts do not “do the right thing” (i.e.
support Trump’s lawlessness). In the
words of constitutional scholar and The Contrarian contributor Steve Vladeck, Miller’s reckless comment is “both (1)
wrong; and (2) profoundly dangerous.” Vladeck enumerates all the reasons
Miller is wrong, concluding: He’s suggesting that the administration would
(unlawfully) suspend habeas corpus if (but apparently only if) it disagrees
with how courts rule in these cases. In
other words, it’s not the judicial review itself that’s
imperiling national security; it’s the possibility that the government
might lose. That’s not, and has never been, a viable
argument for suspending habeas corpus. Were it otherwise, there’d be no point
to having the writ in the first place—let alone to enshrining it in the
Constitution. It is
yet another measure of how badly and regularly Trump is losing in the courts
that his henchmen would make such a threat. On Friday alone, he
lost on two key immigration motions (as discussed below). In a separate matter, a federal court judge in California
enjoined Trump for two weeks from moving forward on “plans for mass layoffs
and program closures, barring two dozen agencies from moving forward with the
largest phase of the president’s downsizing efforts, which the judge said was
illegal without congressional authorization.” So, it
is a good thing then, as Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated last week,
that the “Judiciary is a coequal branch of government, separate from the
others with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law, and strike
down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president.” It is
the courts’ job, Roberts pointed out, to “check the excesses of Congress or
the executive.” There are plenty of executive excesses these days. Given
Miller’s attempt to intimidate the courts, perhaps Roberts was wise to
stress: “Judicial independence is crucial.” As
noted, Miller may have been provoked by the two stinging immigration defeats.
First, U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions III in Vermont held there
was zero basis for locking up and deporting Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Tufts
University Ph.D. student. Ozturk had been carted off to Louisiana, where she
suffered multiple asthma attacks. Replete evidence showed she was an adored
member of the community. She committed no crime. She had
written an op-ed. “That literally is the case. There is no evidence here …
absent consideration of the op-ed,” Sessions said, in ordering her release. Sessions observed
that the government’s actions, if allowed to proceed, would have the effect
of chilling speech for millions of people who might
“avoid exercising their First Amendment rights for fear of being whisked away
to a detention center from their home.” In
addition, Chris Geidner (“Law Dork”) reported that Sessions
declared, “This is a woman who is just totally committed to her academic
career.” Sessions added, “There is absolutely no evidence that she has
engaged in violence or advocated violence.” The Second Circuit upheld another similar lower court’s
ruling on Friday, affirming that Columbia University student Mohsen
Mahdawi be released from custody. The appellate panel unanimously slapped
down the argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to release
Mahdawi on bail because immigration courts have jurisdiction over deportation
matters. The
deportation issue is still pending. But the Second Circuit chastised the
government for “dramatically overstat[ing]” the extent to which immigration
courts can displace federal court jurisdiction. The panel summed up: Mahdawi’s unlawful detention claims may be
resolved without affecting pending removal proceedings. He asserts that the
government arrested him to punish speech with which it disagrees. But
doing so would violate the Constitution—quite separate from the removal
procedures followed by the 14 immigration courts. Consequently, even if his
claims have a substantive overlap with challenges he may bring in his removal
proceedings, his detention claims do not themselves challenge or arise from
“removal proceedings”…. You do
not need to be a lawyer to see that Trump/Miller’s arguments are not simply
losing; they are engendering the disgust of a wide swath of the federal
judiciary. The lawyers assigned to advocate these untenable positions are
getting laughed out of court. (Recall that three different federal district
courts—in Texas, New York, and Colorado—previously blasted the government for
invoking the Alien Enemies Act.) When
the Trump brain trust loses in such embarrassing fashion, it makes ridiculous
threats, as Miller did. Worse, its lackeys start arresting people. On Friday afternoon, the
arrestee was Mayor Ras Baraka, who was peacefully protesting with
members of Congress outside a Newark detention facility run by a private
prison. The
ostensible grounds for handcuffing and arresting him were “trespassing,” but
the Department of Homeland Security’s accusation that members of Congress had
“stormed the facility” beggars belief. (Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New
Jersey congresswoman, flatly denied the accusation.) Video evidence shows Baraka on the public side of
the fence. In sum,
as with the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin, Trump’s go-to tactic
increasingly involves dramatic shows of force against elected officials on
spurious grounds. In doing so, they show their thuggish contempt for the rule
of law, not to mention their frustration over repeated courtroom humiliation. Perhaps
Roberts will need to be more specific when admonishing Trump and his thugs. The
Contrarian is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, in
the court of public opinion and the court of law, kindly consider
becoming a free or paid subscriber. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.