Just the unconstitutional parts. And the text stays on the books, just with a citation to the court case that says they're unconstitutional.
When the courts strike down a law, they have an obligation to keep as much of it intact as possible.
Example: Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate was eliminated, but the marketplace, subsidies, medicaid expansion, and the preventive care stuff stayed in place.
Harvard secured a temporary restraining order on this within 3 hours of filing their lawsuit.
In the Soviet Union it was Swan Lake on TV that let you know that real shit was going down. What do you think would be the equivalent for the USians?
On a lot of these anti-Trump injunctions, you're starting to see a security bond of $1, exactly because of this.
If the one sentence is the entire statutory language, I don't see anything that removes the judge's existing discretion to require a nominal token bond.
This is a really awful tactic:
So these people who were previously following the rules, out on parole, are now locked up, and they no longer have access to the flimsy due process of immigration "court".
Expedited removal was created by Congress in the 90s, and it was intended to be used at ports of entry, and maybe in the immediate border context, where you see people jumping the fence. But the deadline Congress put on it is two years; anyone in the country less than two years can end up in expedited removal.
On the director's commentary, he states that the ultimate cause of Granger's illness is deliberately left vague and unexplained. That's kind of like a plot hole, sort of. Or maybe it's mystery box, and not a plot hole.
Reverse Hackintosh.
Update: the plane has now landed in South Sudan. The government states in court that it has "retained custody and control" of the passengers, following the court order yesterday.
Correction: it seems the plane landed in Djibouti, short of South Sudan.
Per @jjindc on Bluesky tracking ADS-B data, a suspect Gulfstream 5 departed Harlingen, TX yesterday. At the time of the judge's order it was in international airspace approaching Shannon, Ireland, for a likely fuel stop. Overnight, the plane left Ireland, and appears to be currently headed towards South Sudan after detouring across the Arabian peninsula.
The tail number is N588AT.
I remember back in the days of the Commodore 64, games still took 2-3 minutes to load.
But then who says what the statutes that Congress passed mean...?
In this case, the court has determined that notices in English only, that give a 24 hour deadline, with no information about how to contact an attorney, are illegal. That amount of notice is not due process as guaranteed by the 5th amendment of the Constitution.
The constitution overrides all parts of federal law, including the Alien Enemies Act. There is no power to suspend the constitution here. Not even a war power. The constitution applies to the plaintiffs in this case, because they are in the territory of the United States. Full stop.
The government has argued to the court, without citing any specific clause of the constitution, that the President enjoys broad "war powers" that prevent the court from looking into any aspect of what the administration is doing here. The court has clearly rejected that argument* with respect to the 5th amendment concerns.
So that is what the law is, and that's what the law is not. That's a final decision.
*The court has not decided yet on whether the government can use this reasoning to block any interpretation of the meaning of the words "invasion" or "predatory incursion." The lower courts that have ruled are something like 4 or 5 to 1, on the side that the judiciary can interpret those words.
EDIT: Actually, I think the one judge that ruled for the AEA proclamation did so by interpreting "invasion" by looking it up in a dictionary. She just used a modern dictionary, while the others have been using 1798 dictionaries.
It seems that an injunction with a token bond attached would still be enforceable under the proposed law.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the provision that requires the security bond to be substantial.