Drammah v. Barr
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:19-cv-02929
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Drammah v. Barr, Judge Lehrburger ordered briefing on how a Supreme Court decision affected jurisdiction and the requested relief.
The petitioners and respondents in the case, whose supplemental briefing was required on the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on jurisdiction and the requested relief.
What happened
In Drammah v. Barr, the petitioners asked for habeas relief and court orders requiring or declaring certain relief. The respondents opposed the petition.
The court focused on whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam affected the court’s authority to hear the case or grant the requested relief. The opinion did not resolve those questions.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered additional briefing limited to ten pages for each initial and responding submission. The initial briefs were due October 29, 2020, and responses were due November 13, 2020.
The detailed version
- Drammah v. Barr · No. 1:19-cv-02929
- Robert Lehrburger
- Sept. 29, 2020
Background
The court had before it the petitioners’ amended petition for habeas corpus—a request for judicial review of detention or custody—and complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The respondents filed opposition papers, the petitioners replied, and the parties submitted additional briefing at the court’s request.
Issue for Additional Briefing
The court ordered the parties to address how the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam affected the petition, the court’s ability to exercise jurisdiction, and the court’s ability to grant the relief requested. The opinion ordered briefing on that issue rather than deciding it.
Order
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger required initial supplemental briefs by October 29, 2020, and any responding briefs by November 13, 2020. Each brief was limited to ten pages. The order did not decide whether the court had jurisdiction or whether the petitioners were entitled to relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.