When the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when the law is on your side, pound the law; when neither the facts nor the law is on your side, pound the table
/
That “constitutional crisis” Democrats and their media monkeys are howling about? It’s here, alright, and the Democrats have brought it about, by using cherry-picked federal judges to block and delay the implementation of the policies of our duly elected government.
Before discussing the latest outrage by our judiciary, understand that a non-citizen has no inherent right to enter our country. Permission to temporarily enter can be granted, but that permission can be revoked at any time, for any cause or for no cause at all, and the visitor being tossed out can no more sue the government than can the foreigner denied a visa in the first place. Neither has standing to bring a suit, and federal courts have no power or authority to even hear a case involving a revoked or denied visa. So sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court, and it has so ruled just months ago:
December 10, 2024: The Supreme Court Confirms No Judicial Review for Revoked Visas
BOUARFA v. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.
Certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 23–583. Argued October 15, 2024—Decided December 10, 2024
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found appeals to revoked visas cannot be heard in federal courts. As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a discretionary agency, their decisions are not subject to judicial review for revoked visas. This affirms a July 2023 Eleventh Circuit court decision finding the same.
The Department of Homeland Security secretary is given broad authority, by Congress, to revoke a visa for any reason at any time. As such, there is no legal basis for judicial review of revoked visas. The case emphasizes an important distinction in immigration law: some decisions are mandatory, requiring officials to follow specific rules, while others are discretionary, allowing officials the freedom to decide. The Court determined that visa revocations fall into the discretionary category, meaning these decisions cannot be reviewed by the courts.
In the Court’s opinion, they noted Section 1155 as an absolute confirmation of discretion. USCIS may choose to revoke previously approved visa petitions at any time, for any reason the Secretary and USCIS determine is a “good and sufficient cause.” In her written opinion on behalf of the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson clarifies that Congress did not outline specific criteria or conditions for the Secretary or USCIS to follow when determining if a visa should be revoked. Consequently, their authority is not constrained by any defined limitations.
An overview provided by Google AI responding to the prompt, “Can a US visa be revoked without cause?”
Yes, a U.S. visa can be revoked without a specific cause, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary has broad authority to do so, and there's no legal basis for judicial review of such revocations.
Broad Authority:
The DHS secretary, by congressional mandate, has the authority to revoke a visa for any reason at any time.
No Judicial Review:
There's no legal basis for judicial review of revoked visas.
Discretionary Authority:
Consular officers, the Secretary of State, or DOS officials to whom the Secretary of State has delegated authority, are authorized to revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, in their discretion.
Visa Revocation vs. Cancellation:
A revoked visa means your visa is canceled because of a violation or something incorrect you did during your visa application (with prejudice). A canceled visa can happen with or without any specific reason (without prejudice).
Examples of Revocation:
Revocations may occur due to anything from administrative errors to more serious concerns.
So that’s the law, and here’s a federal judge directly defying it and the Supreme Court.
The setup:
Homeland Security Detains Tufts University Student for Supporting Hamas
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Wednesday explained why it had detained Tufts University student Rumesya Ozturk earlier this week.
Footage of Ozturk’s arrest went viral on social media. The incident raised questions about the Trump administration’s targeting of college students who have participated in anti-Israel protests and activities.
Ozturk, a Turkish national, had been residing in the United States on a student visa.
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated in a post on X that an investigation revealed that Ozturk had been “engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans.”
She further stated that “A visa is a privilege not a right” and that “Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated.”
And into the fray jumps a federal Judge, Obama appointee Indira Talwani, issuing orders, and claiming an authority to decide immigration matters that the Supreme Court has ruled she doesn’t have.
At court hearing in Boston on Thursday morning, the district judge Indira Talwani … issued an order giving the government until Friday to answer why Rumeysa Ozturk was being detained. Talwani also ordered that Ozturk not be moved outside the district of Massachusetts without 48 hours’ advance notice.
A federal judge then ordered DHS and Ice to respond in court on Thursday morning to an emergency habeas corpus request to produce Ozturk.
What’s going to happen here, I predict, is that, rather than let the sabotage of the reforms initiated by Trump to continue, he’ll direct the Department of Justice and other agencies to simply ignore these ultra vires (acting or done beyond one's legal power or authority) judicial rulings and fight it out in the Supreme Court down the road after the fact. The technical legal term for this tactic is “go pound sand”, or, in barrister English, “sod off, Swampy”.
Chief Justice Roberts expressed worry last week that the courts are in danger of becoming politicized, but that’s long since occured. The danger now is that the executive branch will simply declare itself beyond the reach of these activist judges and go its merry way. Justified, but it will indeed be the constitutional crisis most rational people fear.
Fun times.
