The judge emphasizes and insists on the difference between civil regulation and criminal punishment. 2/

“At bottom, this case turns on a simple but fundamental principle. In a government of laws,
words matter. Statutes derive their authority from the language Congress enacted and not from the
government’s improper efforts to expand that language to justify detention without process.” 🔥3/

“The authority the political branches possess over immigration does not include the power to seize liberty first and justify confinement later. Due process is not a courtesy extended at the government’s convenience. Due process is the condition that makes custody lawful in the first place. …When liberty is restrained without a meaningful opportunity to be heard, the Constitution’s promise is not delayed. It is denied.” 4/

Judge’s bottom line: the way ICE is seizing drivers, confining them, and treating them like criminals is unconstitutional because it is a deprivation of liberty without due process. 5/

The petitioners in the case are a couple, who have been going through the asylum process, who have lived and worked lawfully in the U.S. for a few years while complying with all the requirements for asylum seekers. 6/

Petitioners were stopped by W. Va. state police. The record contains no information as to justification for the stop. ICE arrived on the scene, concluded petitioners were subject to removal and arrest. Petitioners were arrested and jailed. 7/

Narrowly, the fight over the habeas petition to the district court revolves around the Trump regime’s effort to use immigration statutes that limit federal district courts jurisdiction. These statutes make certain determinations by immigration courts reviewable only by either federal courts of appeal or the Secretary of State. 8/

Habeas petitions must be heard by federal district judges, so the Trump regime is effectively arguing that lawfully present asylum seekers detained and confined by ICE fall outside the protection of habeas. 9/

The Trump regime’s argument is yet another facet of its ongoing effort to evade judicial review of its activities. The judge rejects the regime’s position in no uncertain terms. 10/

The judge rejects the Trump regime’s arguments that the immigration statutes it relies on do in fact apply to the petititioners. Those statutes limit the process people detained under them are due. Because the judge concluded they don’t apply to the petitioners, he proceeds to the question of whether they were jailed with or without adequate opportunity to be heard by a tribunal beforehand, as required by the 5th and 14th Amendments. 11/

Because the petitioners were erroneously arrested and detained in the first place and had no hearing prior to being packed off to jail, their confinement is clearly unconstitutional. So, their habeas petitions are granted by the judge. 12/