The Court’s Disastrous Ruling in the Third‑Country Removal Case (stevevladeck.com)

🔗 https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/161-the-courts-disastrous-ruling
Posted on Jan 1, 1

Overview & Context

📅 Published: June 23, 2025 • 📍 Source: One First newsletter by Steve Vladeck

Vladeck calls the Supreme Court’s emergency order in DHS v. D.V.D. a “disastrous” decision. The unsigned ruling:

  1. Allows removal of non-citizens to third countries without permitting them to challenge potential torture or inhumane treatment in those countries.
  2. Grants a “stay” despite the government having flagrantly defied district court orders—twice—without consequence.

⚖️ Major Concerns

  • Rule of Law Erosion
    Vladeck highlights Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson, which argues the Court is rewarding government defiance, further undermining judicial authority.

  • Due Process Violation
    The Court ignored that migrants already removed face probable torture or abuse, and failed to weigh their harms properly.

  • Shadow-Docket Precedent
    The unexplained, unsigned nature of the stay reflects a disturbing trend of opaque emergency rulings that circumvent transparency and public accountability.

🔍 Broader Significance

  • Vladeck warns this ruling sets a dangerous precedent, incentivizing future district court defiance by removing accountability for contempt.
  • It exemplifies the Court’s growing reliance on its shadow docket to decide momentous cases without full briefing or explanation.

Citation

Vladeck, S. (2025, June 23). The Court’s Disastrous Ruling in the Third‑Country Removal Case. One First (Substack). Retrieved from https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/161-the-courts-disastrous-ruling
OpenAI. (2025). Summary generated by ChatGPT (GPT‑4). Retrieved from chat.openai.com