In a second quick-fire appeal with huge possible ramifications, the matter has raced back to the justices less than two weeks after the Supreme Court authorized President Trump to utilize a contentious wartime provision from the 18th century to expedite deportations.
Every detail of the incident was predictable.
The nation’s top court is under renewed pressure to prevent the government from implementing the Alien Enemies Act, following an obtuse 5-4 decision earlier this month that gave each side a chance to claim triumph. This review will be conducted when lower courts start to dispute over the government’s notification requirements for individuals affected by the act and the measures that migrants can take to challenge them.
The Trump administration was unable to deport a number of Texan immigrants because of an unusual nighttime order that the majority of justices issued early Saturday morning. The ruling was dissenting because of the conservative opinions of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
There was no justification for the court’s decision in its short order. Later on Saturday, the Trump administration complied with the court’s decision and responded to the emergency appeal. “Until further order of this court,” the judge instructed the administration to refrain from removing any inmate from the United States.
As the legal battle over the possible deportations of the Venezuelans held in Texas continues, the Trump administration later on Saturday informed the Supreme Court that it wanted the power to remove them under other statutes beyond the contentious Alien Enemies Act.
Migrants are at the core of many high-profile lawsuits under the Alien Enemies Act, which are now taking place in New York, Colorado, and Texas. The Supreme Court has hinted that it would provide more information on their fate in the next few days or weeks.
Instead of focusing on the Supreme Court, the White House turned its attention to the cases on Saturday.
“We are confident in the lawfulness of the administration’s actions,” stated White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, adding, “President Trump promised the American people to use all lawful measures to remove the threat of terrorist illegal aliens.”
There is little evidence to support the White House’s claims that the deportees are members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Attorneys for the government have used gang affiliation or tattoos on immigrants as grounds for criminal charges in court documents.
An unclear hierarchy
On April 7, the Supreme Court delivered an unclear, unsigned judgment in a separate urgent appeal involving the Alien Enemies Act, a statute from 1798 that Trump used to avoid the usual procedure for expelling certain individuals in the nation without proper documentation.
In a narrow decision, the court upheld the administration’s ability to implement the contentious law, giving Trump the victory. Civil rights organizations were trying to contest Trump’s use of the legislation in order to shut it down wholesale, but it blocked a crucial legal road they were trying to employ.
Meanwhile, in a partial victory for migrants, the court ruled that individuals facing deportation under the act should be given notice and the chance to contest their removal through federal habeas corpus petitions. These petitions are filed by individuals who claim that the government is unlawfully detaining them.
At what point should I give notice? They didn’t say anything in court. How can we make sense of the reality that most inmates file habeas petitions to get out of jail, not to stop deportations? Very little sound. What about the almost two hundred Venezuelans that were previously forcibly removed to El Salvador? I am unsure.
Truthfully, there’s excellent reason why the Supreme Court is wary of discussing specifics of its emergency docket. The veracity of the record is often under question. And without more extensive briefing and oral argument, the justices are often keen to avoid modifying the law.
Despite the April 7 decision’s sensible caution, Trump was nevertheless given a lot of leeway. The White House claimed full triumph and began depending on the act again after taking it all.
In an effort to safeguard its clients and other “similarly situated” Venezuelans who may be subject to targeting under the Alien Enemies Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched a number of habeas cases, following the Supreme Court’s lead. While the government is unable to deport anyone under the act, a number of lower courts have granted interim orders prohibiting this action. These courts include one in Texas and one in New York.
Migrants exclusively under the jurisdiction of the relevant federal courts are protected by these decrees.
Our journey to this point
This week, organizations advocating for the rights of immigrants stated that the government has begun notifying many inmates in northern Texas who are Venezuelan and not protected by any previous rulings that they are liable to deportation under the act.
Those letters, which the ACLU claims are now mandated by the Supreme Court, were written in English and were thus unintelligible to some of the inmates who speak Spanish, according to the organization. Those who obtained the notices were not given any instructions on how to contest their removal, according to the ACLU. They said the inmates were facing “imminent” deportation even though the Supreme Court had told them to go for a second opinion on their case.
Two undocumented immigrants have petitioned a federal district court in Abilene, Texas, for a temporary restraining order to prevent their deportation and those of other individuals “similarly situated” who are now detained in the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas.
US District Judge James Hendrix, who was appointed to the bench by Trump during his first term in office, rejected the asylum seekers’ plea, stating that the government had “answered unequivocally” that it had no plans to deport them and that they were thus not in imminent danger of being deported.
What comes after this?
The Supreme Court is still in the driver’s seat.
The court prevented the Trump administration from doing anything further with the Texan prisoners until it clarified its position in an order that was issued overnight.
Additionally, the ACLU was directed to receive a response from the DOJ “as soon as possible.” Doing so on Saturday night, the Justice Department urged the justices to reject the Alien Enemy Act plea to block deportation.
The senior appellate counsel for the Trump administration, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, wrote that “the government has agreed not to remove pursuant to the AEA those AEA detainees who do file habeas claims.” The subordinate courts should be given the opportunity to handle the pertinent legal and factual matters, including creating an accurate record of facts, by dissolving the present administrative stay.
Sauer basically said that lower courts weren’t given enough time to determine the facts since the case had progressed too rapidly.
The late-night rejoinder of Alito
Finally, late Saturday night was when Alito finally voiced his disagreement and blasted his coworkers.
“Without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order,” Alito wrote, joined by Thomas. The court also issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief during that time.
In a statement to Alito, the immigration attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union had “provided little concrete support” for the claim that the individuals in question were threatened with rapid deportation.
“I declined to comply with the court’s directive because we did not have sufficient grounds to believe that, given the circumstances, delivering a directive at midnight was required or suitable,” Alito stated in his written argument.