On X, people were arguing to me that this is OK, because people charged with crimes are often detained before trial.

But there's no known crime here, and the terms and circumstances of his arrest are opaque and arbitrary, including the transfer to Louisiana. He wasn't in touch with his lawyer until recently.

The argument seems to be that the government can unilaterally revoke a green card based on an affiliation with a foreign terrorist organization, but the proof of that -- beyond a subjective ideological designation -- is flimsy at best.

> The argument seems to be that the government can unilaterally revoke a green card based on an affiliation with a foreign terrorist organization, but the proof of that -- beyond a subjective ideological designation -- is flimsy at best.

Will almost certainly end up with a landmark SCOTUS case.

ChatGPT-aided relevant cases: Bridges v. Wixon, Kleindienst v. Mandel + Trump v. Hawaii  (is national security here a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason"?), Holder v. HLP (what constitutes "material support"?)

Assume that the argument will be on national security / executive branch has ability to deport any non-citizen and will shy away from anything 1A or due process; conversely, his lawyers will lean into the Bridges argument (which worked then).

> The argument seems to be that the government can unilaterally revoke a green card based on an affiliation with a foreign terrorist organization, but the proof of that -- beyond a subjective ideological designation -- is flimsy at best.

Will almost certainly end up with a landmark SCOTUS case.

ChatGPT-aided relevant cases: Bridges v. Wixon, Kleindienst v. Mandel + Trump v. Hawaii  (is national security here a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason"?), Holder v. HLP (what constitutes "material support"?)

Assume that the argument will be on national security / executive branch has ability to deport any non-citizen and will shy away from anything 1A or due process; conversely, his lawyers will lean into the Bridges argument (which worked then).

https://warpcast.com/dmarans/0xd8575ae3

Working on Farcaster and Warpcast. Longer thoughts at https://dwr.email

Aside: it's incredible how much better analysis ChatGPT can provide than the average NYT article on something legal.

prompt: 

"Analyze the constitutional arguments both for and against the following situation, citing relevant case law to support each position.

[paste text of the article]"