The Trump administration is accelerating deportations by transferring detainees across multiple states in 24 hours—a shell game that sidesteps legal challenges and raises urgent questions about constitutional rights.
At a Glance
- Tufts doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk was transferred through three detention facilities in 24 hours
- Detainees are being moved to jurisdictions favorable to the government to evade habeas corpus challenges
- The administration is using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify deportations without trial
- Federal judges are issuing conflicting rulings across states, fueling legal chaos
- Officials cite dubious reasons like “bed bugs” to justify rapid cross-state transfers
Deportation by Detour: The Case of Rümeysa Öztürk
Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk was arrested in Massachusetts and transferred through three detention centers in under 24 hours—ultimately ending up in Louisiana. Her case has become the latest example of what critics call a deliberate attempt by the Trump administration to stymie due process by moving detainees faster than lawyers can respond.
Captured on home surveillance and widely shared on social media, Öztürk’s arrest has sparked public outrage. Legal advocates argue this strategy denies detainees the chance to challenge their detention through habeas corpus. Once moved out of their original jurisdiction, legal petitions are often rendered moot or misfiled.
Watch footage: ICE transfers Tufts student in 24-hour detention blitz
Dusting Off 1798 for Modern Deportation
In an unprecedented move, the administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan nationals accused of gang affiliation—without a trial. Critics say the statute, originally intended for wartime enemies, is being twisted to target immigrants with no formal charges, bypassing both court oversight and constitutional safeguards.
While federal judges in Texas have greenlit many of these removals, courts in Vermont and Virginia have pushed back, temporarily halting deportations of international students like Öztürk. This jurisdictional patchwork has effectively enabled forum-shopping by physically relocating detainees.
Legal Limbo: Jurisdiction as Obstruction
The Supreme Court has ruled that habeas corpus petitions must be filed in the district where a detainee is confined. But with detainees shuffled overnight between distant facilities, lawyers often lose track of their clients before they can file. Officials have provided bizarre justifications—including “lack of bed space” and even “bed bugs.”
Watch a deeper breakdown: ICE transfers and habeas gridlock
The result? A legal catch-22: detainees can’t challenge their removal without a lawyer, and they can’t secure legal help if no one knows where they are. Critics call this a coordinated strategy to sidestep legal resistance and expedite deportations.
Justice by Geography?
What began as a bureaucratic maneuver now risks morphing into a constitutional crisis. The courts are divided, and so are the consequences: while some judges block removals under the Alien Enemies Act, others fast-track them. The rule of law, many argue, is being replaced by a rule of venue—a dangerous precedent for all Americans.
The administration’s transfer strategy has been widely condemned as a logistical ploy masquerading as legal procedure. With growing public attention on high-profile cases like Öztürk’s, pressure is mounting for judicial review and legislative oversight.
Unless challenged, these tactics could permanently reshape how due process and detention are understood in U.S. immigration law—making the Constitution optional in practice, if not in name.
