Docket for 24A949
|
| Apr 07 2025 | Application (24A949) to vacate injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, submitted to The Chief Justice. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Apr 07 2025 | Letter of applicant Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed. | | Main Document | | Apr 07 2025 | Order entered by The Chief Justice: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the April 4, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, case No. 8:25-cv-951, is hereby stayed pending further order of The Chief Justice or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Tuesday, April 8th, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT). | | | | Apr 07 2025 | Response to application from respondent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al. filed. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Apr 07 2025 | Amicus brief of Professors Erwin Chemerinsky, Martha Minow, and Laurence Tribe submitted. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Apr 08 2025 | Reply of applicant Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed. | | ReplyProof of Service | | Apr 08 2025 | Notice of Supplemental Authorities of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al. submitted. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Apr 09 2025 | Motion For Leave to File Sur-Reply filed by respondent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Apr 10 2025 | Motion For Leave to File Sur-Reply denied by The Chief Justice. | | | | Apr 10 2025 | Application (24A949) referred to the Court. | | | | Apr 10 2025 | The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. 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. The District Court should clarify its directive,
with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by The Chief Justice is vacated. (Detached Opinion)
Statement of Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson
join, respecting the Court’s disposition of the application. (Detached Opinion) | | |
|