One of the plaintiffs in the case, O.C.G., has twice sought an order that the Trump regime return him from Guatemala to the U.S. This time, the judge has directed the regime to take "all immediate steps" to facilitate O.C.G.'s return. The regime has to file a status report with the court within five days of today's (5/23) order. 2/

To fully appreciate the craziness of O.C.G.'s winding up in Guatemala, you need to understand both the background facts of his situation and the legal procedural background. Let's start with the facts. 3/

O.C.G. is a gay man from Guatemala. He has no criminal convictions anywhere. He twice tried to enter the U.S. and to seek asylum, out of fear for his physical safety as a gay man in Guatemala. On his first attempt, in 3/24 , he was apparently denied an asylum interview and deported back to Guatemala. In 3/24, he tried again, crossing Mexico on the way. 4.

While in Mexico, O.C.G. was raped and held hostage until a family member paid ransom for his release. (Violence against migrants in Mexico on the way to the U.S. is common.) In 5/24, O.C.G. got to the border, where he was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol. This time, upon expressing fear of returning to Guatemala, he was referred to an asylum officer. 5/

The asylum officer found that O.C.G. had a credible fear of persecution or torture in Guatemala. Following procedures authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the officer referred O.C.G. to an immigration judge for "withholding only" proceedings. These are for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether the U.S. may not deport somebody to a particular country or countries. The migrant has the burden of specifying the nations where he fears for his safety. 6/

At his hearing, the judge agreed that O.C.G. had a credible fear of being seriously harmed if he were sent to Guatemala. Mexico came up when O.C.G. asked if he might be sent there and said he was afraid of that due to having been raped and held hostage there. The judge assured him that as native of Guatemala, he could not be deported to Mexico. Ultimately, O.C.G. was granted a "withholding of removal" to Guatemala and returned to immigration in the U.S. 7/

Two days later, with no advance warning, DHS put O.C.G. on a bus and sent him to Mexico, where he was given the choice being detained there indefinitely while trying to get asylum in Mexico or be being sent back to Guatemala, which is what he chose. He's been hiding out in Guatemala ever since, fearing for his life, afraid to go out or see his family. 8/

The first time O.C.G. sought an injunction requiring the Trump DHS to get him back to the U.S., the Trump defendants claimed, under oath, that O.C.G. had affirmatively stated he had "no fear" of being sent to Mexico. O.C.G. disputed ever saying any such thing. Judge Murphy ordered discovery on the question. Next, the Trump defendants admitted "error" in the their previous statement. They canceled a deposition of their supposed witness bc no such witness exists. 9/

This is pretty incredible. Either the sworn statement saying O.C.G. had said he had no fear of being sent to Mexico was itself a lie believed by the DoJ lawyers who shared it with the court or the DoJ officials who made the representation knew it was false and themselves deliberately lied to the court. 10/

Using understatement, Judge Murphy noted today that "the events leading up to [today's] decision are troubling." He has ordered discover to "better understand" how it happened that the defendants twice gave him false information, upon which he relied, putting O.C.G. at continuing risk. Bottom line: this is in an inquiry into contempt of court by the defendants and ethical misconduct by their DoJ lawyers. 11/

Since O.C.G. was removed to Mexico with no notice and no opportunity for a hearing on his credible fear of being sent there, Judge Murphy found today that he is likely to ultimately succeed on his claim that the Trump DHS violated his due-process rights. On this basis, Murphy ordered O.C.G.'s return to the U.S. while the lawsuit proceeds. 12/

Murphy rejected all the Trump regime's arguments against his jurisdiction over O.C.G.'s motion for the temporary injunction Murphy issued today. Those arguments are too technical to go into here. upshot is that none of them recognize that O.C.G.'s right to due process was violated "the moment he was denied notice and a meaningful opportunity to present his fear-based claim." That is a serious wrong, as Murphy says, and the only way to fix it is to "go back and do it over" properly. 13/

One last notable point about the opinion in support of the injunction: based on precedent, Murphy at his discretion, decided that O.C.G. does not have to file an "injunction bond." This means O.C.G. does not have to put up any money to cover certain costs the executive branch might incur while the lawsuit proceeds and if he loses. Injunction bonds are meant to prevent requests for injunctions when a party knows s/h/ey their underlying claim is weak. 14/

In the current budget bill just passed in the Republican-controlled House and now going to the Senate, the Republicans have tucked in a provision stating that where no injunction bond is posted, nobody can be held in contempt for conduct during the suit. 15/

What a tell! The Republican Fascists are not attempting to change the law on injunction bonds, whereby judges have discretion not to require them. They are just trying to protect Trump exec officials, including DoJ lawyers, from ever being found in contempt. The D.V.D. v. Trump case shows just the sort of conduct the bill would let Trump officials get away with, with formal impunity. 16/16

I'm just curious: could a judge who wanted to make sure that a TRO could be enforced with a contempt finding against the government end-run around this new law by ordering the plaintiffs to post bond in the amount of $1? The law explicitly applies only where NO bond has been posted. The amount of the bond is purely discretionary, right?

@jonberger In principle, I think you are right, but I can imagine somebody arguing that a de minimus bond is, for purposes of the provision Congress is trying to pass, equivalent to no bond.

There's no doubt that's what they'd argue. But the audience of that argument would be a judge, and the fundamental subject matter of the argument would be the power of judges to issue enforceable orders, so I can easily imagine the judge going with a strict reading of the statute. If this got before the Supremes, it would force them to choose between Trump on the one hand and the Judicial Branch's status as a co-equal branch of government on the other, and there are at least some of them for whom that wouldn't be an easy choice.