US appeals court allows third-country removal of migrants while case on appeal News
usicegov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
US appeals court allows third-country removal of migrants while case on appeal

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Monday granted the government’s motion to stay a lower court order, which prohibited the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from removing migrants to third countries.

The court did not explain its order, stating only: “Defendants’ emergency motion for stay pending appeal is granted.” The grant pauses the lower court’s order until the appellate court can rule on the case. Judge Lara Montealvo would have denied the motion, dissenting against majority judges Jeffrey Howard and Seth Aframe.

The case arose from a lawsuit that four noncitizens brought against President Donald Trump’s administration, alleging that it violated due process and various statutes when the government removes migrants to countries other than their country of origin “where they face persecution, torture, and/or death.” Plaintiffs argued that noncitizens are not given proper notice or an opportunity to object to their removal to third countries. The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts agreed and found that the government cannot reliably determine where a noncitizen will face persecution without consulting the noncitizen.

The government appealed the district court decision to the First Circuit, asking for a stay on the lower court order until the appeals court ruled on the case. The government asserted that it was likely to win on appeal because the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and that DHS provides sufficient due process to noncitizens prior to removal because they have the opportunity to object to removal to various countries during removal proceedings. Plaintiffs countered that they cannot object without knowing where the government planned to send them.

The case comes against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s various controversial immigration policies. Among them include an enacted a visa ban on certain countries and the removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salador, despite a court order against it. Third country removal is another policy among this list of contested practices.

The case will continue in the First Circuit, where the court has ordered the government to file its brief in 14 days; plaintiffs must then file a reply 14 days after that.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Gandhi sentenced for sedition after civil disobedience campaign

On March 18, 1922, a court in British-ruled India sentenced Mohandas Gandhi to six years in prison for sedition in connection with his civil disobedience campaign for Indian home rule. Read Gandhi's famous statement to the trial court. Gandhi served two years of his sentence and was then released.

Supreme Court requires states to provide counsel for indigent defendants

On March 18, 1963, the US Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright held that the Constitution requires states to provide counsel for indigent criminal defendants. For a unanimous Court, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "Any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." Counsel had been required for indigent federal defendants since 1938.