As I understand it no charges were made at time of arrest. Is it a question of the court wanting to keep jurisdiction over j the legality of the ( clearly illegal) arrest itself? Or jurisdiction over the legality of deportation? Or are the 2 intertwined?
Could you please clarify this? I really appreciate your work.
As I understand it, the court was concerned that the Trump admin might deport Mahmoud
before he gets any kind of due process, so it issued an order saying they can't deport him at least until they have the emergency hearing on the 12th.
This one is really beyond my understanding because even Trump's dog Holman gave the game away when he was on some interview essentially saying that if someone has committed a crime the State Department can totally revoke someone's green card, which is reasonable. But they have, to my knowledge neither charged, much less convicted Mahmoud with anything, so I don't see what the thought process is here.
Great news. But the courts will not stop him forever
As I understand it no charges were made at time of arrest. Is it a question of the court wanting to keep jurisdiction over j the legality of the ( clearly illegal) arrest itself? Or jurisdiction over the legality of deportation? Or are the 2 intertwined?
Could you please clarify this? I really appreciate your work.
As I understand it, the court was concerned that the Trump admin might deport Mahmoud
before he gets any kind of due process, so it issued an order saying they can't deport him at least until they have the emergency hearing on the 12th.
This one is really beyond my understanding because even Trump's dog Holman gave the game away when he was on some interview essentially saying that if someone has committed a crime the State Department can totally revoke someone's green card, which is reasonable. But they have, to my knowledge neither charged, much less convicted Mahmoud with anything, so I don't see what the thought process is here.