Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
He even references another case Trump lost. 
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/69020fe121beee9c960eca0e
......Government's Interest. The best I can make of the Government's asserted interest is that it must be able to enforce the immigration laws as it interprets them. I do not discount that interest. See Dep't of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S. 899, 911-12 (2024) ("[T]he through line of history is recognition of the Government's sovereign authority to set the terms governing the admission and exclusion of noncitizens."
. But the Government's enforcement of immigration laws is not what is at issue here. Rather, it is the automatic stay regulation that Garcia Picazo challenges. The asserted interest of unilaterally revoking a bond determination made by a neutral arbiter is weak. If anything, the Government's interest in enforcing the immigration laws and ensuring that aliens entering removal proceedings are neither a danger nor a flight risk is satisfied at a bond redetermination hearing. But even accepting that the Government does have some interest in upholding the automatic stay provision,3it does not outweigh Garcio Picazo's liberty interest and the risk that the provision has on erroneously depriving him of that right.
B. Ultra Vires Regulation
Finally, Garcia Picazo argues that the automatic stay provision is ultra vires because it amounts to DHS acting without congressional authority. "Agency actions beyond delegated authority are 'ultra vires,' and courts must invalidate them." United States ex. rel. O'Keefe v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 132 F.3d 1252, 1257 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Transohio Sav. Bank v. Dir., Off. of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598, 621 (D.C. Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Perry Cap. LLC v. Mnuchin, 864 F.3d 591, 621 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). The Government's brief does not address this argument. Which may be deemed an abandonment of the issue. Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006); see also Am. Foreign Serv. Ass'n v. Trump, 766 F. Supp. 3d 25, 30 (D.D.C. 2025). Nonetheless, I will address the challenge. In doing so I adopt and incorporate by reference the reasoning in Jacinto v. Trump, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 25CV3161, 2025 WL 2402271, at *5 (D. Neb. Aug. 19, 2025).
......Government's Interest. The best I can make of the Government's asserted interest is that it must be able to enforce the immigration laws as it interprets them. I do not discount that interest. See Dep't of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S. 899, 911-12 (2024) ("[T]he through line of history is recognition of the Government's sovereign authority to set the terms governing the admission and exclusion of noncitizens."
. But the Government's enforcement of immigration laws is not what is at issue here. Rather, it is the automatic stay regulation that Garcia Picazo challenges. The asserted interest of unilaterally revoking a bond determination made by a neutral arbiter is weak. If anything, the Government's interest in enforcing the immigration laws and ensuring that aliens entering removal proceedings are neither a danger nor a flight risk is satisfied at a bond redetermination hearing. But even accepting that the Government does have some interest in upholding the automatic stay provision,3it does not outweigh Garcio Picazo's liberty interest and the risk that the provision has on erroneously depriving him of that right.
B. Ultra Vires Regulation
Finally, Garcia Picazo argues that the automatic stay provision is ultra vires because it amounts to DHS acting without congressional authority. "Agency actions beyond delegated authority are 'ultra vires,' and courts must invalidate them." United States ex. rel. O'Keefe v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 132 F.3d 1252, 1257 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Transohio Sav. Bank v. Dir., Off. of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598, 621 (D.C. Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Perry Cap. LLC v. Mnuchin, 864 F.3d 591, 621 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). The Government's brief does not address this argument. Which may be deemed an abandonment of the issue. Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006); see also Am. Foreign Serv. Ass'n v. Trump, 766 F. Supp. 3d 25, 30 (D.D.C. 2025). Nonetheless, I will address the challenge. In doing so I adopt and incorporate by reference the reasoning in Jacinto v. Trump, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 25CV3161, 2025 WL 2402271, at *5 (D. Neb. Aug. 19, 2025).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read