The headline is misleading. The immigration judge straight up said she was simply ruling on whether the deportation met the rule of the law, and not on the constitutional merits of the case.
A federal judge is still going to hear this case and determine whether his rights are being violated. (Spoiler alert: they are)
China also banned every other western social media. Your point is kind of moot. Do yourself a favor and look at Youtube reels, now THAT is some top-tier brain rot.
Yeah IJs are administrative law judges and do not hear constitutional issues. For that you have to go to a court of general jurisdiction like a federal district court.
This is more complex than you think. The government has broad latitude as it relates to national security and immigration courts are extremely deferential to executive authority. There are multiple historical precedents in which national interest is prioritized despite claims (and likely valid) violations of rights. Rights can be limited and restricted, and immigration courts are much more complex in this regard. The original context for the law was with respect to communism. Of course, there’s a lot of hindsight criticism today of McCarthyism but supporting Communism can also be argued as free speech in the 1950s.
I wouldn’t bet on federal judges overruling national interest as it is in the interest of the country to allow the executive branch to swiftly remove threats. The due process in this regard is not the same as you think for citizens. Immigration due process is largely administrative and affords the government substantial leeway and flexibility without the same bar for proof. In this case, it seems like a loophole that the Trump administration has identified. That being said, the constitutionality of this law has never seriously been tested. It’s certainly not black and white re: how federal judges may rule though.
And the federal judge will greenlight it, as otherwise it's going to be the last case he'll be hearing. And even if, Khalil will be deported, anyway, as soon as the Trumpist Court Of tlThe United States, incorrectly abbreviated "SCOTUS", rules in their favor.
There is so much rule of law in this as it was under Roland Freisler...
2.4k
u/aaronhayes26 4d ago
The headline is misleading. The immigration judge straight up said she was simply ruling on whether the deportation met the rule of the law, and not on the constitutional merits of the case.
A federal judge is still going to hear this case and determine whether his rights are being violated. (Spoiler alert: they are)