Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process, and to whatever degree they might, they only merit it while "within" the "jurisdiction" of the US. And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read, I missed that bit about the 14th amendment. This has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment argument is about who gets ius soli citizenship (what they call "b…
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The question is whether an illegal immigrant even has access to due process, according to a strict legal reading of the law. This was one of the arguments being thrown around - whether or not "any person" in the above applies to illegal i…
The Government may not rely on its own failure to circumvent its own ruling that Abrego Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador. More importantly, the Government cannot be permitted to ignore the Fifth Amendment, deny due process of law, and remove anyone it wants, simply because it claims the victims of its lawlessness are members of a gang. Nor can the Government be permitted to disclaim any ability to return those it has wrongfully removed by citing their physical presence in a foreign jurisdiction.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ab...
>That's why all they could say was 'facilitate', and why they had to slap the lower judge's wrist.
That's an incomprehensible interpretation of what the Supreme Court actually wrote:
The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.