The district court found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in certifying that the policy violated its constitutional right to legitimate proceedings.
The federal court of appeals refused to lift the Trump administration’s temporary restraining order and refused to block the government from quickly following the deportation of illegal immigrants.
In a March 28 ruling, Murphy concluded that the government should deport the government to a third country without an established bond, meaningful opportunity for individuals to apply for written notice and protections under US law, including treaties against torture.
In its emergency motion, the Justice Department allegedly outweighed its powers by imposing new procedural obligations on the administrative department and obstructing the administration’s statutory powers.
Related Stories
“The district courts have stolen enforcement and have impose a great practical impact on the president’s authority to control diplomacy, including allies who want to take over enforcement and accept aliens that are not citizens,” writes Doj Atturseys.
The DOJ also pointed to a new directive issued by the DHS in response to a district court decision. The guidance requires that countries receiving exiles under such circumstances provide diplomatic assurances that individuals will not be persecuted or tortured. Except for this guidance, DOJ’s lawyers also argued that illegal immigrants could also file protection claims through existing management channels, including filing motions to reopen with the DHS, the immigration court, or the Immigration Committee’s appeals committee.
“The plaintiffs focus on the lack of notice regarding the country of removal, as if their fears depend on receiving that notification. That’s not,” a lawyer for Doj wrote, arguing that the administrative process was sufficient and that the plaintiffs were seeking relief in the district court simply for convenience.
“The defendant asserts the free authority to send non-citizens to a country that was not previously designated in an immigration lawsuit without providing notice in any country, and therefore does not have a meaningful opportunity to seek protection from persecution or torture in that unidentified country,” the plaintiff’s lawyer wrote.
They added that allegations to reopen are not practical remedies until they are too late to act, especially for many exiles, especially those who are in custody, or those who are not represented or don’t know where they are being sent.
The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on the Court of Appeals’ decision at the time of publication.
The case is now returning to district court, with Murphy expected to hear plaintiffs’ motions for interim injunctions over the coming days. The outcome of that hearing can determine whether restrictions on deportation from third countries are in effect during the litigation period.
