Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a pair of orders by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had barred the government from removing noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang under a March 15 executive order issued by President Donald Trump. By a vote of 5-4, the justices declined to address the challengers’ contention that they are not covered by the 18th-century law on which Trump relied in issuing the order. Instead, the challengers’ lawsuit must be brought in Texas, where they are being held, rather than in Washington, D.C., the court explained…
“The 1798 law at the center of the case is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court if either of two things occurs: Congress declares war, or there is an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion.’ The law has been invoked only three times – during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Trump’s executive order focuses on a large Venezuelan gang named Tren de Aragua, which began in Venezuela’s prisons and then spread into other parts of Latin America and, eventually, the United States.” SCOTUSblog
Here’s our previous coverage of the Alien Enemies Act. The Flip Side
The left is disappointed by the decision, arguing that the Court missed an opportunity to push back against Trump’s illegal actions.
“The Court did not suggest that what Trump is doing is legal, or, just as bad, that it might not be subject to judicial review… [But] it’s still a ruling by a Court that seems willing to hide behind less-than-obvious legal artifices to make it harder for federal courts to actually restrain conduct by the current administration that everyone believes to be unlawful…
“This isn’t any old case; it’s the case in which the government has come the closest to outright defiance of a court order… And it’s the case that led President Trump to call for the impeachment of a sitting federal judge for doing nothing other than rule against him… Not two weeks later, here’s Roberts providing the decisive vote to hold that, in fact, the case shouldn’t have been before that judge (or that court) in the first place, without even a hint that any of the government’s (profoundly disturbing) behavior in this case warrants any reproach.”
Steve Vladeck, One First
“The Supreme Court’s decision also rules that anyone Trump targets must bring a ‘habeas’ proceeding, a process that ordinarily can only be used by a single individual to challenge their detention by the government. That means judges can only bar detention on a person-by-person basis. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor warns in dissent, ‘individuals who are unable to secure counsel, or who cannot timely appeal an adverse judgment rendered by a habeas court, face the prospect of removal directly into the perilous conditions of El Salvador’s [prison].’”
Ian Millhiser, Vox
“It is also entirely unclear where migrants who have already been deported to El Salvador must now file their petitions. They had been represented by the classwide litigation in D.C. which is now defunct. But they cannot file in Texas because they’re being held in a foreign country. The Trump administration has taken the position that these individuals can’t file habeas petitions at all; they are simply stuck in CECOT indefinitely with no recourse…
“The president invoked the Alien Enemies Act in secret so it could hustle migrants overseas before courts could intervene. Why should he now receive this extraordinary, undeserved assistance to continue operating what is so obviously an unlawful program, with a pinky promise that he’ll afford due process this time… Roberts’ decision to bail Trump out is a deeply ominous sign that the chief justice wants to rein in lower courts standing in the way of the MAGA agenda.”
Mark Joseph Stern, Slate
The right applauds the decision, arguing that lower courts have been wrongly obstructing Trump’s agenda.
The right applauds the decision, arguing that lower courts have been wrongly obstructing Trump’s agenda.
“For all the left’s whining about Trump as a ‘fascist dictator,’ it’s the judiciary that’s been twisting the Constitution and the rule of law to undermine his agenda. Article II hands the president nearly unilateral control over foreign policy and national security. Imagine if every drone strike needed a judge’s OK — or worse, if courts ordered the military to bomb someone…
“It is Trump’s job to deport national security threats; the courts have no business playing border cop… Trump’s got the mandate — and the muscle — to shield America from gangbangers, terrorists and fraudsters. The courts need to quit the power grab and let him do his job. The rule of law’s back, and it’s wearing a red hat.”
Andrew Cherkasky and Katie Cherkasky, New York Post
“The primary thrust of the Supreme Court decision is that Boasberg overstepped by taking the case at all. If the plaintiffs want to challenge their detention, the Supreme Court ruled, the proper venue is the district in which they are presently detained -- Texas -- rather than DC…
“Will that be enough to end ‘judge shopping’ and nationwide TROs by district court judges? Color me skeptical in the extreme. The court will have to deliver more explicit language on that point, and may well have to promulgate new rules for federal courts in order to end that pernicious -- and now universally used -- strategy…
“In other words, this decision is a step in the right direction. But it doesn't actually settle much other than proper venue.”
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
“Both Sotomayor and Kagan criticized the majority for deciding this issue without first going through the judicial process of full briefing and oral argument. Yet that is exactly what Boasberg did, attempting to block implementation of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation and ordering an extraordinary remedy almost immediately without going through any of those steps…
“Despite the Supreme Court’s holding, and in what can only be termed as an act of defiance, Boasberg issued an order on Tuesday telling the ACLU to inform him by April 16 whether it still has a basis to proceed on its demand for a preliminary injunction in his court. That seems remarkable, given the fact that the Supreme Court told him he does not have jurisdiction over this matter and that the only possible remedy for the ACLU’s clients are via habeas petitions filed in Texas.”
Hans von Spakovsky and Thomas Jipping, Daily Signal
