Not only is it material, it's a lynch pin to the entire case! If you keep reading:
>Considering these facts, and with no evidence to the contrary provided by the Government, the district court properly determined that “just as in any other contract facility, Defendants can and do maintain the power to secure and transport their detainees, Abrego Garcia included.” Dist. Ct. Opinion at 12. In its filings before this court, the Government makes no more than a naked assertion that Abrego Garcia “is in the custody of a foreign sovereign over whom America has no jurisdiction.” Mot. for Stay at 9. But the record demonstrates otherwise. There is no indication that Abrego Garcia has been charged with a crime in El Salvador or is being held there pursuant to the laws of El Salvador. On the contrary, Abrego Garcia is a detainee of the United States Government, who is being housed temporarily in El Salvador, “pending the United States’ decision on [his] long term disposition.” S.A. 149. Thus, the district court’s order does not require the United States to demand anything of a foreign sovereign.
Instrumental here is 'contract facility.'
The District court and Thacker's quote cite the El Salvador facility as a 'contract' facility. On that basis they argue it is not a demand on a foreign sovereign, but rather a detention by the USG.
No, what's critical is not the existence of a contract or not, but whether the US has actual control over the prisoners. That part is undeniable regardless of a contract. Xinis derives this view not from evidence of a contract, but first and foremost from the fact that to have lost control of the prisoners would involve having discarded the INA entirely, which the executive obviously cannot do.
From immediately before your quote:
> Surely, Defendants do not mean to suggest that they have wholesale erased the substantive and procedural protections of the INA in one fell swoop by dropping those individuals in CECOT without recourse
My issue with your phrasing is the assertion that El Salvador is somehow a 1-year relationship or detention. We have no evidence beyond an AP report about a memo that this is the case. Neither we nor the judges know what the terms of this agreement are. For the judges' purposes, the terms are irrelevant beyond "does the US have control," which of course they do.
> My issue with your phrasing is the assertion that El Salvador is somehow a 1-year relationship or detention.
Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free.
Where there's money, there's some kind of agreement. Even if it's completely unspoken and unwritten (which I doubt either way).
If the money stops, so would their acceptance of droves of new deportees.
Not to mention that $6M for 300 people indefinitely is nowhere near enough... but for 1 year it certainly makes a lot more sense, I think that comes out to $20k/yr per person, which is cheaper than what it costs the US to do the same.
Nobody is doubting the existence of an agreement. I am asserting that we have no way to be certain about any of the terms of said agreement, given that no one has seen it.
(And as a side assertion, that the Trump administration is breaking the law by not having said contract available for at least the judge, if not the public).
>Considering these facts, and with no evidence to the contrary provided by the Government, the district court properly determined that “just as in any other contract facility, Defendants can and do maintain the power to secure and transport their detainees, Abrego Garcia included.” Dist. Ct. Opinion at 12. In its filings before this court, the Government makes no more than a naked assertion that Abrego Garcia “is in the custody of a foreign sovereign over whom America has no jurisdiction.” Mot. for Stay at 9. But the record demonstrates otherwise. There is no indication that Abrego Garcia has been charged with a crime in El Salvador or is being held there pursuant to the laws of El Salvador. On the contrary, Abrego Garcia is a detainee of the United States Government, who is being housed temporarily in El Salvador, “pending the United States’ decision on [his] long term disposition.” S.A. 149. Thus, the district court’s order does not require the United States to demand anything of a foreign sovereign.
Instrumental here is 'contract facility.'
The District court and Thacker's quote cite the El Salvador facility as a 'contract' facility. On that basis they argue it is not a demand on a foreign sovereign, but rather a detention by the USG.