Reposted by Suzie
Rep. Mike Collins, a GOP U.S. Senate candidate, recently said he was “fine” with the idea of Trump sending federal troops to voting sites.
“It may be fine with you,” Marc Elias says, “but it’s not fine with federal law.”
Keep watch on the people rewriting the rules: demdock.com/3T3Owjg
![Ochoa Ochoa v. Noem: Due Process
Having concluded that Ochoa Ochoa's detention is discretionary and not
mandatory, the court turns to whether it violates due process. "Procedural due
process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of liberty' or 'property' interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976).
"Freedom from imprisonment-from government custody, detention, or other forms
of physical restraint-lies at the heart of the very liberty that [the Due Process
Clause] protects." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
To support its argument that Ochoa Ochoa has limited due process rights in
the detention context, Respondents rely on Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, where the Supreme Court held that a petitioner who was still "at the threshold of initial entry," though technically in the country, could still be treated as "an alien
seeking initial entry." 591 U.S. 103, 114 2020) holding that a noncitizen detained "within 25 yards of the border" is treated as if stopped at the border and had not acquired due process protections). Contrary to Respondents' position, Thuraissigiam held only that noncitizens detained close to the border "shortly after unlawful entry"
have not yet "effected an entry." Id. at 140; see also Shaughnessy v. United States, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953) (explaining that noncitizens "on the threshold of initial entry
stand[] on a different footing" than those who have "passed through our gates").](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f4d76fjna5nxqsy2fu6cgmp3/bafkreieofbtos26t3epka4a7c2p3xw477nfbl2guurqcuoslw2h24qolye)
