Supreme Court allows Trump to deport Venezuelans under wartime law, but only after judges' review

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Mon Apr 7, 2025, 08:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: AP

Updated 8:43 PM EDT, April 7, 2025


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to use an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants, but said they must get a court hearing before they are taken from the United States. In a bitterly divided decision, the court said the administration must give Venezuelans who it claims are gang members “reasonable time” to go to court.

But the conservative majority said the legal challenges must take place in Texas, instead of a Washington courtroom.

The court’s action appears to bar the administration from immediately resuming the flights that last month carried hundreds of migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The flights came soon after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II to justify the deportations under a presidential proclamation calling the Tren de Aragua gang an invading force.

The majority said nothing about those flights, which took off without providing the hearing the justices now say is necessary. In dissent, the three liberal justices said the administration has sought to avoid judicial review in this case and the court “now rewards the government for its behavior.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined portions of the dissent.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-deportations-el-salvador-9988b667199e1b02fc0a6a83570225c1

---

Article updated.

Previous articles -

Updated 7:31 PM EDT, April 7, 2025


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to use an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants, but said they must get a court hearing before they are taken from the United States.

In a bitterly divided decision, the court said the administration must give Venezuelans who it claims are gang members "reasonable time" to go to court. But the conservative majority said the legal challenges must take place in Texas, instead of a Washington courtroom.

In dissent, the three liberal justices said the administration has sought to avoid judicial review in this case and the court "now rewards the government for its behavior." Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined portions of the dissent. The justices acted on the administration's emergency appeal after the federal appeals court in Washington left in place an order temporarily prohibiting deportations of the migrants accused of being gang members under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act.

"For all the rhetoric of the dissents," the court wrote in an unsigned opinion, the high court order confirms "that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal."

Updated 7:18 PM EDT, April 7, 2025


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to use an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants, but said they must get a court hearing before they are taken from the United States.

In a bitterly divided 5-4 decision, the court said the administration must give Venezuelans who it claims are gang members "reasonable time" to go to court. But the conservative majority said the legal challenges must take place in Texas, instead of a Washington courtroom.

In dissent, the three liberal justices said the administration has sought to avoid judicial review in this case and the court "now rewards the government for its behavior." Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined portions of the dissent.

The justices acted on the administration's emergency appeal after the federal appeals court in Washington left in place an order temporarily prohibiting deportations of the migrants accused of being gang members under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act. The case has become a flashpoint amid escalating tension between the White House and the federal courts.

Original article/headline -

Supreme Court lifts order blocking deportations under 18th century wartime law

Updated 7:03 PM EDT, April 7, 2025


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a court order blocking the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants under an 18th century wartime law.

In a bitterly divided 5-4 decision, the court said the migrants still must get a chance to challenge their deportation before they are taken out of the country and said the Trump administration must give them "reasonable time" to go to court.

But the conservative majority said the legal challenges must take place in Texas, instead of a Washington courtroom.

The justices acted on the administration's emergency appeal after the federal appeals court in Washington left in place an order temporarily prohibiting deportations of the migrants accused of being gang members under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act. The case has become a flashpoint amid escalating tension between the White House and the federal courts.

[ImNotGod]

1. The US is a fascist ruled state, from the judiciary on down. Anything goes, there are no roadblocks, nazi Germany on

steroids. So when the dictator decides to start sending US citizens to death camps in another country what's going to stop him? At least that is what I'm witnessing so far.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. "no roadblocks"? Reading the OP reveals that this decision is a roadblock to what tRump had been doing

[bluestarone]

2. TEXAS?

Why in the fuck did they choose TEXAS? I think we ALL know why. Crooked fucking bastards!!

[ananda]

8. Fifth Circuit and Trump judges

Boy this court is ugly.

[Irish_Dem]

3. US Supreme Court has sold out their country.

Who are they really working for?
Not the American people.

[bluestarone]

4. So fucking roberts gave Garcia lawyers until 5 pm tomorrow, but then went ahead

Joining the fascist right on this? What a turd. So no hearing tomorrow?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. Deadline: Legal Blog-SCOTUS splits 5-4 to grant Trump emergency relief in Alien Enemies Act deportation litigation

I listened to the oral arguments before the DC Circuit and read the opinion. One judge on the DC Circuit held that this case had to be brought as a habeas case and was in the wrong venue. The SCOTUS majority agreed with that concept that this is really a habeas case and so the venue was wrong. The SCOTUS did hold that all future detainees must be given notice and opportunity to contest grounds for deportation/removal which is one of the ACLU's main demands

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-trump-alien-enemies-act-judge-boasberg-rcna199052

A divided Supreme Court vacated temporary restraining orders issued by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., which had halted certain deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The court split 5-4, with Republican appointees in the majority and Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett dissenting alongside the court's three Democratic appointees.

In an unsigned "per curiam" ruling, the majority said detainees must bring their challenges in habeas corpus proceedings and must do so where they are confined. “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia,” the majority said.

The majority also said detainees under the act “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.”

Writing a dissent joined by the other two Democratic appointees and partially by Barrett, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the majority’s legal conclusion “suspect.” She said the court granted the government “extraordinary relief” and said the court did so “without mention of the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the Government’s attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.”

Here is a link to the opinion
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
I still believe that the Alien Enemies Act is not applicable and the majority expressly did not decide that issue

They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments.

There will be habeas actions that must be heard in Texas

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay.

I still think that the DOJ/trump violated the trial court's injunction and should be held in contempt. Unfortunately, this case moots that ruling because the ruling was in the wrong venue according to the majority opinion.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. IMHO

Use of that Act shouldn't even be valid but that whole issue might not have been what was argued at this point.

[moniss]

9. That courtroom hearing in Texas will begin and end

for any migrant in about 10 seconds or less.

[JohnnyRingo]

10. I can see Barrett flipping over time.

She's already blinked on a couple judgements proffered by her fellow wingnuts.

She is notably a mother of seven, including two adopted from Haiti. Since it appears she has a beating heart she can't possible be thrilled with the way the country is headed. I predict she will be pumping the brakes soon and the SC will be a different bench.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. KEY TAKEAWAY: Supreme Court is UNANIMOUS in requiring due process:

These passages in the opinion makes me smile

Link to tweet

KEY TAKEAWAY: Supreme Court is UNANIMOUS in requiring due process:

- Roberts majority: Trump admin MUST give notice and time to challenge in court.



- Kavanaugh concurrence: Judicial review available



- Sotomayor dissent: All 9 agree deportations without due process are illegal

[iemanja]

12. Traitorous fucks

The constitution means nothing to them.