WASHINGTON—The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to stay or suspend an injunction a lower court has issued stopping the removal of a group of dangerous alien criminals to the nation of South Sudan.
The aliens—who have been convicted of such crimes as child sexual assault, sexual abuse of the mentally disabled, and murder— claimed that if they were removed to their home countries, they would face torture. But when federal officials asked them if they would consent to being removed to South Sudan—a country that has agreed to take them—instead, they said yes. Nevertheless, the federal district court in Massachusetts enjoined their removal as inconsistent with this country’s treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
As IRLI shows in its brief, however, the district court did not show how the removals were inconsistent with CAT. Instead, it rewrote and added to the regulations under which the removals were carried out according to the court’s own notions of fair play. These regulations, however, implement CAT as directed by Congress, and therefore have the force of law. And neither the alien plaintiffs nor the district court ever showed that these regulations were not followed here.
Also, IRLI shows that Congress has removed jurisdiction from district courts to hear CAT claims, which can only be brought alongside a petition challenging an order of removal in a court of appeals.
“This case is yet another example of courts’ presuming to govern us, rather than applying the law made by the political branches to the case before it,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “No one elected this district court judge, and he has no authority either to rewrite regulations made at the direction of Congress or to ignore limitations on his court’s jurisdiction. We hope the Court sees the lawlessness of this injunction and suspends it pending appeal.”
The case is DHS v. D.V.D., et al., No. 24A1153 (Supreme Court).
