3 ms·

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 b

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.

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.