Dangerous Criminal Aliens Must Be Deported
FAIR shows lower-court injunction barring removals has no basis in law
WASHINGTON—Earlier this week, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) filed a brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals urging the court to reverse a lower court’s injunction stopping the removal of a group of dangerous alien criminals to the nation of South Sudan. (An earlier version of this brief, filed in this appeal in July, was rendered moot by a change in briefing schedule.)
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 FAIR 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 lower court ever showed that these regulations were not followed here.
Also, FAIR 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.
“A court’s function is to apply the law made by the political branches to the case before it, not rewrite the law,” said Christopher J. Hajec, deputy general counsel of FAIR. “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 appellate court sees the baselessness of this injunction and reverses.”
The case is D.V.D., et al., v. DHS, No. 25-1393 (First Circuit).
