The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Twice, SCOTUS Finds Coastal Courts Improperly Exercised Venue
In two consecutive orders, the Court signals that progressive litigants forum shopped to the wrong courts.
On March 30, I wrote a post titled "Coastal Judges Play Keep-Away From The Fifth Circuit." One week later, the Supreme Court has turned the tides.
Last Friday, in Department of Education v. California, the Court ruled that a federal court in Boston improperly exercised jurisdiction and venue. The challenge to the funding cut belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. And today, in Trump v. J.G.G., the Court ruled that a federal court in the District of Columbia improperly exercised jurisdiction and venue over an alien detained in Texas.
For "core habeas petitions," "jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to
I draw several conclusions from this ruling.
First, this was a case of clear forum shopping by the ACLU and other groups. The aliens were known to be detained in Texas. The obvious venue to file suit was in Texas. The ACLU determined (rationally) that the Fifth Circuit would not be a favorable forum. Therefore, they took a risk and sought emergency relief in the D.C. Circuit on a Saturday. Their decision backfired. Now, venue will lie in Texas. I think most criticisms about forum shopping expired on January 20, 2025.
Second, Judge Boasberg committed a clear legal error. The Supreme Court ruled that he exercised jurisdiction when he should not have. Is there any greater error than improperly exercising jurisdiction? As best as I can recall, the Court has never faulted Judges Reed O'Connor or Matthew Kacsmaryk with such an error. Chalk one up for Texas federal judges. Moreover, the gushing coverage of Judge Boasberg has been nauseating. I don't recall any District Court judge who has received more favorable press by the mainstream media in such a short period of time. Perhaps the most egregious such piece stressed how Judge Boasberg has friends in high places--namely, Justice Kavanaugh. As if a Supreme Court Justice will favorably review a decision from his friend? Well you know what? Justice Kavanaugh reversed his fellow "cubbie." The suggestion that there is some sort of club where elite judges rule for their buddies is beyond obnoxious, and demeaning to Justice Kavanaugh. Finally, it is not clear if the District Court has power to hold the executive branch in contempt where it lacks jurisdiction over the case.
Third, there are several other cases pending where aliens are detained in Louisiana, but coastal judges have asserted jurisdiction. I think this ruling should send a clear signal to federal courts in Boston and New Jersey: you do not have the power to supervise cases where the alien is detained on the Gulf of America.
Fourth, the aliens in Texas cannot be removed right away. They must be afforded a hearing before their removal:
More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
This is a very quiet defeat for the Trump Administration, which sought to spirit the aliens away without any hearing.
Fifth, I'm still not sure what JGG means for Chief Justice Roberts in the Garcia case. I think JGG is a fairly straightforward application of habeas and venue law. Rumsfeld v. Padilla has been on the books for two decades But the Garcia matter concerns the power of the judiciary. And John Roberts is still at heart a judicial supremacist. Perhaps in that case Justice Barrett swings the other way?
I will have more to say about this case, and Justice Barrett's dissent* in another post.
