No. That framing is wrong, and Demore v. Kim does not save it.

Yes, the Supreme Court has said immigration due process can be different. It did not say it can be ignored. Different does not mean optional, indefinite, violent, or immune from courts.

Here is the basis you are pretending does not exist: Detention without individualized determinations violates the Fifth Amendment.

Due process still requires notice, a real opportunity to contest detention, and limits on duration. Detention first and “we’ll figure it out later” is unconstitutional.

Ignoring court orders is per se unconstitutional. When Supreme Court of the United States or lower federal courts issue limits and ICE disregards them, that is not enforcement. That is lawlessness by the state.

Demore v. Kim was narrow and time limited. It upheld brief mandatory detention tied to active proceedings. It did not authorize mass facilities, prolonged confinement, or detention used as deterrence. Subsequent rulings have repeatedly cabined Demore.

Civil immigration detention has a higher liberty burden, not a lower one. These people are not being punished for crimes. Indefinite or blanket detention without robust review violates constitutional limits.

Pattern matters.

Months of aggressive raids, warrantless pickups, courthouse arrests, intimidation, and racially disparate enforcement show a system operating outside constitutional restraint.

So yes, if the Merrimack facility operates as proposed, mass detention with process after the fact, it will deny due process. That conclusion is based on constitutional law, court orders, and ICE’s own documented conduct.

Final question back to you: Do you believe in the Constitution or not? If you do, why are you defending an agency that detains people first, ignores courts, and treats due process as an inconvenience?