US Supreme Court backs Trump on deportations under 1798 law
reuters.com
reuters.com
* They can grab anyone off the street and send them to a labor camp in a foreign country even if they have no connection to that country.
* If you want to challenge them in court, you have to do it in the location where the person is being held. They don't have to tell you where that is, and they can move the person to a venue where the courts will be favorable to them. They are moving people thousands of miles to Louisiana or Texas as quickly as possible.
* If they can get you out of the country before you can get into court to challenge them, too bad. The courts can do nothing to get you back, and the government certainly isn't going to try.
* You cannot challenge their decision that a gang or criminal organization constitutes an invasion by a foreign country, no matter how absurd it may be.
* You might be able to challenge whether the person is a member of that organization (originally they said you couldn't but they may be wavering on this point), but they are going to do everything they can to get you out of the country before you can get into court to challenge them.
* They don't have to tell the courts even the most basic publicly available information, like when flights departed.
As a practical matter, there is very little stopping them from grabbing anyone, even an American citizen, and sending them to a labor camp in El Salvador. Is it illegal? Sure - but they are making it almost impossible to get restitution in court.
>So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). 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.
The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this. I respectfully dissent.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/05/doj-...
- They are allowed to use the AEA to arrest and deport foreign criminals
- The Supreme Court unanimously believes all detainees are entitled to judicial review and a court date as part of the detainment process
- Any existing cases of rights violations needs to be prosecuted in the district court where the detainment occurs, not in the DC court.
- Most of the dissent is that ruling was rushed and changing the location of the suits was unnecessary.
Sotomayor:
> That means, of course, that the Government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025.
> Nor can the Government "immediately resume" removing individuals without notice upon vacatur of the TRO, as it promised the D. C. Circuit it would do. See 2025 WL 914682, *13 (Millett, J., concurring) (referencing oral argument before that court).
> To the extent the Government removes even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court.
They did not reach the point of ruling for against the use of the AEA in these circumstances.
>The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. 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. 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.
Where the detainees are. Not where they were detained.
The Court did not rule that Trump's invocation of the AEA (Alien Enemies Act) was legal, constitutional, or appropriate. Nor did they approve of his deportation of detainees without a judicial hearing - a point all of the Justices emphasized.
What is clear is the majority manufactured a way to toss Trump a bone. First, the matter arose before SCOTUS by way of Trump's appeal of a Temporary Restraining Order. A TRO is a ruling by a trial court that a party needs to wait a short while (14 days in this case) before being allowed to proceed with an intended action. Because they are temporary and of short duration, they are only appealable upon if the appealing party can demonstrate irreparable harm if forced to wait until the TRO time runs.
No such showing was made here. Indeed, the hearing on the TRO was scheduled for tomorrow. The majority didn't even pretend to address what irreparable harm the Administration would have suffered Trump by waiting until the TRO ran out.
From a personal standpoint, I am dismayed - and to his shame - that Chief Justice Roberts would toss aside any remaining self respect he may have, by tossing aside long standing legal principles for the purpose of sending Trump the message they are willing to 'tilt the tables and bend the rules in his favor' whenever they can.
Do they? Jackson ignoring SCOTUS didn’t trash our republic.
The Court has created precedent for a wide range of abuses. I’m curious for Democratic strategists to start gaming out how they could be deployed.
"They dismissed the weight of Boasberg's spoken order during a hearing two hours earlier calling for any planes carrying deportees to be turned around."
And what does this mean? "The ruling said the court was not resolving the validity of the administration's reliance on that law to carry out the deportations."