Reposted by @kgarfield22.bsky.social
It's already illegal. Congress banned it near-unanimously in 2022. That law allows the ban to be lifted only if Russia withdraws from Ukraine. He's simply breaking the law that's already on the books.
kgarfield22.bsky.social
@kgarfield22.bsky.social
2.2K followers 4.5K following 121 posts
Economics | Housing first and for all | Community Land Trusts | YIMBY | Anti Fast Fashion | 🏳️⚧️ rights are non-negotiable She/her Content quality may vary
![Here, most importantly, Defendants have not identified any process Plaintiff received before they removed him to Equatorial Guinea. Their declarant attests only that
Equatorial Guinea provided diplomatic assurances, that the State Department found them
credible, and that ICE followed the Guidance. No. CV-26-02888-PHX-JCH, Doc. 15-1
¶¶ 5–8. Under the Guidance, those assurances permit removal “without the need for further
procedures.” (Doc. 9-1 at 2–3.) Defendants maintain that “the government has in fact
implemented procedures to protect [Plaintiff’s] interest” because the Guidance prohibits
removal absent either credible assurances or an individual hearing. (Doc. 9 at 5.) But the
assurance route is the absence of individualized process: it provides no notice of the
country of removal and no opportunity to be heard. The Court finds this insufficient to
abide by due process prior to removing Plaintiff to a third country. See Smith, No. CV-26-
04065-PHX-SHD (JFM), Doc. 19 at 6 (holding that reliance on diplomatic assurances “is
insufficient process before removing Petitioner to a third country”).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2vtbmhmrwzbqcfv4we4uxzzt/bafkreiglijejdqoympsywdoytshknwipvcbhndri77v4mae2cpgeyeudcu)
![Defendants also contend Plaintiff “focuses on the lack of notice regarding the
country of removal as if [his] fear depends on receiving that notice.” (Doc. 9 at 11.) But
notice is the predicate for the opportunity to be heard; a person cannot raise a fear-based
claim against removal to a country he does not know he will be sent to. In any event,
Plaintiff did express fear and ask for a fear interview prior to removal, and he was refused.
(Doc. 1 ¶ 1; Doc. 1-1 at 27.)
The Court’s conclusion rests on binding Ninth Circuit authority and does not depend
on the D.V.D. judgment. It is, however, consistent with that judgment, which declared that
class members have the right to meaningful notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise a
country-specific claim before removal to any third country, 821 F. Supp. 3d 102, and which
the First Circuit affirmed, D.V.D., 2026 WL 2797801.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has established actual success on Count One. Plaintiff’s
removal to Equatorial Guinea without notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise a
country-specific claim against removal there violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. Andriasian, 180 F.3d at 1041.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2vtbmhmrwzbqcfv4we4uxzzt/bafkreiceeuxgrjplhokrat6kv2qsso5lhsbs3rtftuyxlwhhxbmk6ynhma)
