Yes. The technical capability exists. It's been mostly locked behind due process, but with the willingness to throw that out the window, it can be done.
A lawsuit is never meaningless. One doesn't stop trying to enforce the law because a criminal is persistent. And someone that willingly breaks a law for immoral reasons and without being willing to face the consequences is a criminal.
I would add that pursuing legal recourse is the only way to reach that Supreme Court decision where either the administration is slapped down or the courts relinquish their Art III powers. Until then we're only approaching a potential constitutional crisis, where the administration has plenty of opportunity to back down.
A lower court just declared their treatment and deportation of Venezuelans as unlawful and it changed literally nothing. They’re still doing it. We’ve seen this several times already. Unless enforcement happens, they simply don’t stop.
Is that what happened? I am only aware of an injunction against additional deportation flights. There is some uncertainty about the administration's justifications for not complying - they may be entirely correct that the terrorist designation changes the calculus.
And injunctions are far, far from the point at which things are "declared unlawful".
I agree that you must go through the motions to push to the maximum extent of judicial recourse. But, depending on your threat model, you must be prepared if recourse through the legal framework is not forthcoming. An injunction or favorable determination by a court is of little use if you're dead, for example (lots of other examples of irreversible harm, which needs no enumeration here).
Hah my fault for not being specific. He is certainly not criminally liable for such actions. But it's a frighteningly common misconception that SCOTUS ruled he could do anything and not have it reversed by the courts.
Eh,that is the narrative he is trying to project so that when the courts issue injunctions or rulings against him he can claim to be victimized. Or that he tried his best to fulfill a campaign promise that can't be accomplished via exective orders. Many such cases.
Article covers this; injunctive relief comes too late when the damage to trust in payment finality is already done by the act.
When the bad actors own the enforcement mechanisms against acting badly, a slap on the wrist injunction probably feels good, not bad. Like it's proof what they're doing is having the intended effect, so they should continue doing it
