25

As a US citizen not charged with or convicted of any federal crime, it would be completely illegal for the US government to arrest me, deport me, and hand me over to the government of El Salvador to be indefinitely imprisoned there. But, such things have been known to happen to people to whom they legally may not, due to "administrative error", so it's not inconceivable that they could happen to me. And the current policy of the federal government seems to be that, when these things do happen without legal justification, the government has no obligation to undo them and no court has the power to order the problem solved.

Can I then sue for injunctive relief to solve this problem in advance, on the basis that, if it were to actually happen, relief would be impossible after the fact? Or would I need to have some higher-than-background likelihood of this particular problem happening to me personally in order to have standing to sue? Or some evidence that fact that this could happen to me was creating some kind of impermissible chilling effect on me in particular?

(I don't imagine an injunction prohibiting administrative errors would be terribly useful, but there are other potential things that could be ordered that would prevent the problem from occurring. This question isn't meant to be about the practicality of particular ideas for injunctions, but rather whether I would have standing to sue for something here at all.)

interfect
  • 5,497
  • 30
  • 53

2 Answers2

59

Jen's answer explains why you can't. But, even if you could that doesn't mean much.

Abrego García was deported to El Salvador. According to the restatement of the facts in the SCOTUS order to facilitate his return:

The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal

That is, Abrego Garcia got the exact injunctive relief you're asking for - removal withholding order specifically instructing the US Federal Government NOT to remove him to El Salvador. The US Government removed him despite being well aware of that order, that was issued by a DoJ Immigration Judge several years prior. The US Government claims it was a mistake.

So while the law is on that person's side, the US Government ignored a judge's order to not remove him to El Salvador and removed him there nonetheless, and is now claiming that it is powerless to comply with the SCOTUS order to facilitate his return.

The conclusion is that if the US Government decides to remove you, a judge's order telling them not to may not mean much.

V2Blast
  • 118
  • 11
littleadv
  • 8,641
  • 2
  • 17
  • 45
17

See Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. ___ (2025).

Detainees subject to removal "are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard 'appropriate to the nature of the case'. ... More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs." That habeas hearing is what would reveal a person's non-removability.

The Court clarified that the proper venue for that habeas petition is the district of confinement.

Regarding standing, in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), the Court said it not enough that there be an "objective reasonable likelihood" of harm:

“threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact,” and that “[a]llegations of possible future injury” are not sufficient

Jen
  • 87,647
  • 5
  • 181
  • 381