6 ms·

Supreme Court allows Trump to enforce Alien Enemies Act for rapid deportations

48 points by alwillis 2y ago

iamtheworstdev 2y ago
Justice Roberts empowering Trump in order to avoid seeing what would happen if the administration got held in contempt.
- goatlover 2y ago
  It's interesting that Amy Coney Barrett sided with the dissent and not Roberts. The big ruling will be on returning the Maryland man who was accidentally deported to an El Salvadoran prison. I can't imagine them siding with Trump's lawyers on that, they're blatantly in the wrong and have been told so by 4 judges now. That would be extremely worrying if SCOTUS upheld his deportation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Are you aware that an immigration judge found the man deportable for connections to MS13 and the Board of Immigration appeals affirmed?
    - dcrazy 2y ago
      Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals are part of the Executive Branch. The court has held that executive actions must be subject to review by an Article III court.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        That's incorrect. Lots of immigration decisions are judicially unreviewable, such as visa revocations: https://www.boundless.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-courts-cant-review-visa-revocations https://www.boundless.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-courts-ca.... The Supreme Court has also never held that non-citizens have a right to an Article III judicial determination to challenge deportation. The current immigration laws provide for many circumstances where deportation is judicially unreviewable, and indeed does not even require a determination by an administrative immigration judge: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedited-removal https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedite...
    - goatlover 2y ago
      I'm aware an immigration judge in 2019 withheld his removal and there was an unreliable witnesses claiming they heard him say he had connections, but that was in NY, not Maryland where Abrego Garcia lives. I'm also aware the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him. Why they won't just bring him back is disturbing. He has a wife and 3 children who are all US citizens. Nobody should be defending this.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        > Why they won't just bring him back is disturbing. He has a wife and 3 children who are all US citizens. Nobody should be defending this. Without opining on whether he should be brought back: it seems kind of a slippery slope (legally speaking) to suggest that someone should be brought back because of their family, no? I'm not sure I'd want courts to decide that people should also be subject to deportation or other punishments because of their families.
        defrost 2y ago
        The actual topography here, rather than any hypothetical buttered slope, is a man was deported in defiance of pre existing court orders that he not be deported. Is it correct that you are in favour of courts being involved in deportation decisions and those decisions being respected and paid heed to?
        rayiner 2y ago
        > The actual topography here, rather than any hypothetical buttered slope, is a man was deported without in defiance of pre existing court orders that he not be deported. False. Garcia was concededly subject to deportation except to El Salvador. And that condition prohibiting removal to El Salvador was not issued by a "court," but rather by an immigration judge (executive branch employee).
        goatlover 2y ago
        Was that because they were in a rush to ignore a judge's order temporarily halting the deportations?
defrost 2y ago
It's a middling result: Venezuelans in the United States labeled by President Donald Trump as “alien enemies” must be given a chance to challenge their deportations before being expelled from the country, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday. Courts in Texas may not be especially receptive to such petitions. Any appeals will be heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s most conservative federal appeals court. Still, the Supreme Court’s ruling appears to deal a setback to Trump’s attempt to swiftly deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, under powers used only three prior times in U.S. history, most recently in World War II. Nevertheless, Trump declared victory Monday. Supreme Court says Venezuelans Trump wants to deport must be able to ‘actually seek’ relief before being deported ~ https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/supreme-court-deportations-texas-00277646 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/supreme-court-depor...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
alwillis 2y ago
From Sotomayor’s dissent: The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.
- rayiner 2y ago
  The dissent’s point is disingenuous because the majority held that the proper vehicle for challenging the detention is a habeas petition, and that detainees must have the opportunity to file one: > Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). > More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    >> The implication of the Government’s position is > The dissent’s point is disingenuous Might you be confusing the government's position with the majority's opinion? The sentence quoted above from the dissent is saying that the government's position has {bad implication}, not that the majority's opinion has {bad implication}.
dataflow 2y ago
The actual opinion (why are they so reluctant to link it?) is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
- dcrazy 2y ago
  Interesting that Barrett concurred with the dissent on whether the petitioners should be allowed to bring their habeas petition in the District Court of D.C.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
arunabha 2y ago
Honestly, the biggest victory for the govt here is probably being allowed to invoke the act when the nation is clearly not at war. The act has previously only been invoked in war time. To allow the govt to claim that we are at war based on assertions of 'invasion' by illegal aliens is extremely dangerous. The idea of the govt being able to invoke wartime powers when we are clearly not at war should be something that troubles people regardless of political affiliation. Wartime powers are by definition extraordinary and are designed to give the president vast powers necessary to deal with an existential threat to the nation. There is no feasible way to cut those back without seriously hamstringing us in case of an actual war on our borders. However the implicit contract is that governments use those powers only in cases of actual war and existential threats. By allowing the govt to move ahead in this case, we have significantly expanded the supremacy of the executive over the other branches. Many democracies have not been able to come back from this(at least not very easily). By nature, politicians(regardless of party) will never willingly relinquish power. It's a given that the next president whether Democrat or Republican will keep this power and potentially use it against political enemies. I genuinely do not know where we go from here.
- dcrazy 2y ago
  The court doesn’t seem to have reached any conclusion about the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act in this way. They just said the process for challenging the AEA must be done through a habeas petition in district where they are held, not in a class action suit in court in D.C. The dissent is pointing out that the administration is deliberately moving these people to districts where they are likely to get favorable rulings quickly, and they have demonstrated willingness to perform these actions in spite of contrary rulings from other courts, rather than respecting the ruling and arguing about jurisdiction.
m463 2y ago
it seems like there are lots of national emergencies by presidents of all parties, and lots of them deal with criminal organizations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States#Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i... is this that different?
tastyface 2y ago
It’s important to remember that the “deportations” being discussed here are one way tickets to a foreign slave camp, from which few inmates emerge and which is effectively walled off from the Salvadoran justice system. Potential life sentences, in other words. For people who are largely not criminals.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hn_acker 2y ago
I find a different framing more appropriate: Supreme Court Hides Behind Ridiculous Procedural Argument To Allow Human Trafficking To Continue [1] [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/08/supreme-court-hides-behind-ridiculous-procedural-argument-to-allow-human-trafficking-to-continue/ https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/08/supreme-court-hides-behi...

48 points by alwillis 2y ago

iamtheworstdev 2y ago

Justice Roberts empowering Trump in order to avoid seeing what would happen if the administration got held in contempt.

goatlover 2y ago
It's interesting that Amy Coney Barrett sided with the dissent and not Roberts. The big ruling will be on returning the Maryland man who was accidentally deported to an El Salvadoran prison. I can't imagine them siding with Trump's lawyers on that, they're blatantly in the wrong and have been told so by 4 judges now. That would be extremely worrying if SCOTUS upheld his deportation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 2y ago
  Are you aware that an immigration judge found the man deportable for connections to MS13 and the Board of Immigration appeals affirmed?
  - dcrazy 2y ago
    Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals are part of the Executive Branch. The court has held that executive actions must be subject to review by an Article III court.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      That's incorrect. Lots of immigration decisions are judicially unreviewable, such as visa revocations: https://www.boundless.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-courts-cant-review-visa-revocations https://www.boundless.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-courts-ca.... The Supreme Court has also never held that non-citizens have a right to an Article III judicial determination to challenge deportation. The current immigration laws provide for many circumstances where deportation is judicially unreviewable, and indeed does not even require a determination by an administrative immigration judge: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedited-removal https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedite...
  - goatlover 2y ago
    I'm aware an immigration judge in 2019 withheld his removal and there was an unreliable witnesses claiming they heard him say he had connections, but that was in NY, not Maryland where Abrego Garcia lives. I'm also aware the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him. Why they won't just bring him back is disturbing. He has a wife and 3 children who are all US citizens. Nobody should be defending this.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > Why they won't just bring him back is disturbing. He has a wife and 3 children who are all US citizens. Nobody should be defending this. Without opining on whether he should be brought back: it seems kind of a slippery slope (legally speaking) to suggest that someone should be brought back because of their family, no? I'm not sure I'd want courts to decide that people should also be subject to deportation or other punishments because of their families.
      - defrost 2y ago
        The actual topography here, rather than any hypothetical buttered slope, is a man was deported in defiance of pre existing court orders that he not be deported. Is it correct that you are in favour of courts being involved in deportation decisions and those decisions being respected and paid heed to?
        rayiner 2y ago
        > The actual topography here, rather than any hypothetical buttered slope, is a man was deported without in defiance of pre existing court orders that he not be deported. False. Garcia was concededly subject to deportation except to El Salvador. And that condition prohibiting removal to El Salvador was not issued by a "court," but rather by an immigration judge (executive branch employee).
        goatlover 2y ago
        Was that because they were in a rush to ignore a judge's order temporarily halting the deportations?

defrost 2y ago

It's a middling result: Venezuelans in the United States labeled by President Donald Trump as “alien enemies” must be given a chance to challenge their deportations before being expelled from the country, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday. Courts in Texas may not be especially receptive to such petitions. Any appeals will be heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s most conservative federal appeals court. Still, the Supreme Court’s ruling appears to deal a setback to Trump’s attempt to swiftly deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, under powers used only three prior times in U.S. history, most recently in World War II. Nevertheless, Trump declared victory Monday. Supreme Court says Venezuelans Trump wants to deport must be able to ‘actually seek’ relief before being deported ~ https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/supreme-court-deportations-texas-00277646 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/supreme-court-depor...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

alwillis 2y ago

From Sotomayor’s dissent: The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.

rayiner 2y ago
The dissent’s point is disingenuous because the majority held that the proper vehicle for challenging the detention is a habeas petition, and that detainees must have the opportunity to file one: > Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). > More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
- dataflow 2y ago
  >> The implication of the Government’s position is > The dissent’s point is disingenuous Might you be confusing the government's position with the majority's opinion? The sentence quoted above from the dissent is saying that the government's position has {bad implication}, not that the majority's opinion has {bad implication}.

dataflow 2y ago

The actual opinion (why are they so reluctant to link it?) is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

dcrazy 2y ago
Interesting that Barrett concurred with the dissent on whether the petitioners should be allowed to bring their habeas petition in the District Court of D.C.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

arunabha 2y ago

Honestly, the biggest victory for the govt here is probably being allowed to invoke the act when the nation is clearly not at war. The act has previously only been invoked in war time. To allow the govt to claim that we are at war based on assertions of 'invasion' by illegal aliens is extremely dangerous. The idea of the govt being able to invoke wartime powers when we are clearly not at war should be something that troubles people regardless of political affiliation. Wartime powers are by definition extraordinary and are designed to give the president vast powers necessary to deal with an existential threat to the nation. There is no feasible way to cut those back without seriously hamstringing us in case of an actual war on our borders. However the implicit contract is that governments use those powers only in cases of actual war and existential threats. By allowing the govt to move ahead in this case, we have significantly expanded the supremacy of the executive over the other branches. Many democracies have not been able to come back from this(at least not very easily). By nature, politicians(regardless of party) will never willingly relinquish power. It's a given that the next president whether Democrat or Republican will keep this power and potentially use it against political enemies. I genuinely do not know where we go from here.

dcrazy 2y ago
The court doesn’t seem to have reached any conclusion about the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act in this way. They just said the process for challenging the AEA must be done through a habeas petition in district where they are held, not in a class action suit in court in D.C. The dissent is pointing out that the administration is deliberately moving these people to districts where they are likely to get favorable rulings quickly, and they have demonstrated willingness to perform these actions in spite of contrary rulings from other courts, rather than respecting the ruling and arguing about jurisdiction.

m463 2y ago

it seems like there are lots of national emergencies by presidents of all parties, and lots of them deal with criminal organizations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States#Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i... is this that different?

tastyface 2y ago

It’s important to remember that the “deportations” being discussed here are one way tickets to a foreign slave camp, from which few inmates emerge and which is effectively walled off from the Salvadoran justice system. Potential life sentences, in other words. For people who are largely not criminals.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

hn_acker 2y ago

I find a different framing more appropriate: Supreme Court Hides Behind Ridiculous Procedural Argument To Allow Human Trafficking To Continue [1] [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/08/supreme-court-hides-behind-ridiculous-procedural-argument-to-allow-human-trafficking-to-continue/ https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/08/supreme-court-hides-behi...