Of course not. The government has sovereign immunity against lawsuits against its policies, mistaken or intentional, save for where it has proactively given consent to be liable. To claim otherwise would provoke an instant constitutional crisis by violating the 11th amendment (and entire history of common law). The means by which you seek redress from a government are not exhorting one branch to condemn another, but to petition your government. You know, democratically.

If the government allows a waiver of immunity in cases like this, it seems like a candidate for the kind of civil trial that results in a symbolic $1 award. He entered the country illegally and was deported illegally, both facts uncontested by either party, seems like the karma is already balanced out.

If doing it by the books does not delay deportation by much, it is even weirder to defend it.

If the government can ignore judges rulings without penalty, then rule of law is dead. You do not seem to care, but you really should.

Also: you realize I am not talking about a lawsuit against the government as consequences, right? Why would I?

This post was edited by SkySwallower on Apr 14 2025 03:59pm

Man you really just don't get it.

What was Lincoln's penalty in Ex Parte Merryman? A stern look of disdain etched onto Taney's bust mounted in the capitol?
The government acknowledges it made a mistake in violating a court order it didn't know about, and had no reason to suspect existed because its utterly nanners
The lower court here completely shredded the constitution by trying to enforce an order that would violate the separation of powers and sovereignty of the executive, and the only statutorily provided relief was for the supreme court to sit on the judge's chest and whack him in the face a few times.
Pray tell what should be a court's penalty for violating the constitution? In a functional government with the rule of law, we just adjudicate these disputes and arrive at a sensible conclusion rather than being vindictive and punishing those involved but maybe we need to erect gibbets

I will leave to go to bed with one last thought experiment:

Imagine instead of prosecutors accusing the Jan 6th rioters and trying them in court, the Biden administration would have deported them all into a russian gulag and they would not be comming back because either they are dead by now or Russia wants to keep them. At the same time, a judge would have explicitly told Biden before that he was not allowed to do that and he still did it. After the fact, all 9 sc justices agree that what Biden did was illegal.

Do you think the Biden administration should have faced consequences in this hypothetical scenario?

Good night.

Maybe you'll wake up to a better understanding of everything pointed out here.

The status of the people you are deporting is the one thing you really need to know about? What kind of excuse making is that, literally the one thing you need to be aware of before deporting somebody is to verify that you are actually allowed to do it.

Are you going to admit that Adolf Eichmann was innocent and Israel was 100% wrong for kidnapping, and murdering him without due process?

You're not very good at constructing hypotheticals because I already explained that necromancy is the exclusive jurisdiction of boney men and jesus christ. No court in America can order an administration to frankenstein the dead bodies

He probably just didn't have a 'REAL ID' bro.

This post was edited by PapaPsych on Apr 14 2025 04:08pm