nice thorough pre-made opinion where they just add in the excoriation of the oral argument and hit print.
ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cd184457-25de-4158-8178-e16298a614d4/1/doc/25-1019_opn.pdf
At oral argument before this Court, the government first stated that it does not know who Öztürk’s immediate custodian was while she was in transit at approximately 10:01pm and then took the novel position that Öztürk’s immediate custodian at that time was the warden of the Vermont facility to which she had not yet arrived. The government cited no authority for this contention, and it is at odds with the straightforward rule set out in Padilla that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is “’the person with the ability to produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court.” 542 U.S. at 435 (quotation marks omitted). As the Supreme Court instructed in Padilla, “the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held,” id. (emphasis added), not the person who will at some unspecified future time have the ability to produce the prisoner’s body or the warden of a facility where the prisoner is not yet being held.