Supreme Court halts latest wave of Alien Enemies Act deportations, for now

[mystery-ak]

 Supreme Court halts latest wave of Alien Enemies Act deportations, for now
by Zach Schonfeld - 04/19/25 6:32 AM ET

The Supreme Court early Saturday halted the administration’s ability to use the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport migrants to El Salvador who are being detained in portions of Texas, for now.

The emergency order temporarily blocks the deportations until the high court resolves the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) emergency appeal, which was filed hours earlier over concerns that more deportation flights were imminent.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court’s leading conservatives, dissented.   

The ACLU simultaneously asked several courts to immediately intervene Friday, warning that the Venezuelan migrants could otherwise be given life sentences in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison without the opportunity for judicial review.

“The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,” the Supreme Court’s order reads.

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5256983-supreme-court-halts-alien-enemies-act-deportations/

[Right_in_Virginia]

The great American experiment ends here.

[DCPatriot]

The great American experiment ends here.

And with a GOP nominated SCOTUS majority, too!   

[Right_in_Virginia]

And with a GOP nominated SCOTUS majority, too!   

Yup @DCPatriot

In one emergency ruling issued in the dead of night, the Supreme Court made moot existing law, castrated the Executive Branch, tore up the separation of powers and pissed on 77 million voting Americans in favor of the anti-America mob.

There's no recovery from this because we've lost --- with the highest Court's support and encouragement --- the rule of law.

" The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,”  the Supreme Court’s order reads.

[Free Vulcan]

I wonder why the ACLU gets a special dispensation for an emergency appeal.

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://twitter.com/DavidMitch125/status/1913618114891096488

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://twitter.com/ArielDelra4225/status/1913619006302363916

[Bigun]

"Each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action...."

Thomas Jefferson

"Nothing has yet been offered to invalidate the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority."

James Madison

“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to everyone that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”

Federalist #47 [James Madison]

[Bigun]

The great American experiment ends here.

Only if the president allows it. @Right_in_Virginia

[Right_in_Virginia]

Only if the president allows it. @Right_in_Virginia

Here comes the third impeachment @Bigun

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1913551314161656077

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://twitter.com/cfdalton1/status/1913553252685140297

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1913632038046871987

[MeganC]

Judicial tyranny.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The great American experiment ends here.

When the unelected branch of government supersedes the two elected branches, there is no freedom and no Republic.

It is dictatorship as there is no representation by the people.

[Sighlass]

I wonder why the ACLU gets a special dispensation for an emergency appeal.

Exactly, how does an ultra-leftist anti-American group have a brake pedal that extended to the SCOTUS?

[Bigun]

Judicial tyranny.

Precisely! Just as Madison warned us about.

[DCPatriot]

THIS...is what happens when the Deep State intelligence
agencies are able to eavesdrop on your phone calls, emails and internet searches.

Soon, you get a knock at your front door from 2 Men wearing Black suits, Fedoras and aviators threatening the lives of your children.


THIS......is what happens when you nominate women who won't articulate what a woman is!

F**king Alexa

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/JohnStrandUSA/status/1913579584198512994

[Hoodat]

The ACLU simultaneously asked several courts to immediately intervene Friday, warning that the Venezuelan migrants could otherwise be given life sentences in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison without the opportunity for judicial review.

Not our problem.  If they didn't want to be deported to El Salvador, then they shouldn't have entered the US illegally and forfeited the due process of asylum through their own actions (or lack thereof).

If Bill Clinton can send Elian Gonzales back to Cuba without even granting him an asylum hearing, then Donald Trump can damn sure deport anyone entering the country illegally and allowing the asylum limitation statute expire.

[Hoodat]

John Strand
@JohnStrandUSA

BREAKING: the U.S. Supreme Court has contradicted itself—acknowledging “judicial review” doesn’t apply to a President executing Article II power under AEA

This is often the pitfall of making it up as you go.  Stick to the written law, and you won't embarrass yourself like this.

[Hoodat]

I wonder why the ACLU gets a special dispensation for an emergency appeal.

A professional courtesy granted to former ACLU head Ruth Bader Ginsberg that has now become a judicial standard.

(Fun fact:  During her 17 years on the USSC, Justice Ginsberg did not recuse herself of a single case brought before the Court by the Anti Christ Lawyers' Union.)

[Hoodat]

The Supreme Court early Saturday halted the administration’s ability to use the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport migrants to El Salvador who are being detained in portions of Texas, for now.

The emergency order temporarily blocks the deportations until the high court resolves the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) emergency appeal, which was filed hours earlier over concerns that more deportation flights were imminent.

So here's what the Trump Administration needs to do.  Charge every one of these 'migrants' with entering the country illegally, deny bail, and contract out across the country for prosecutors to try these cases.  Once tried and convicted, contract with El Salvador to incarcerate our federal convicts for us.  This can all be done while the courts decide whether it is ok or not to deport them now.

[Fishrrman]

Right in Virginia posted:
"The great American experiment ends here."

And Bigun replied:
"Only if the president allows it."

Why am I the ONLY ONE in this forum stating what must be done?
It is not the prerogative of the Courts -- including the U.S. Supreme Court -- to set their limits. Any court, anywhere, given this authority will in time exceed all reasonable limits upon such authority.

It's the job of the President to declare what those limits (upon Executive discretion) will be, subject to the assention of the Congress, or their silence, or other actions.

Once again, I repost:
===============
There needs to be proclaimed (yes, proclaimed) "The Trump Doctrine" on the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary.

It must re-define how much power the federal courts have to exercise against the president and his powers.

No individual federal judge anywhere should have the power to overturn executive action.
At the district court level, when and where federal/nationwide policies are impacted, judges should have no more power other than to issue an opinion (strictly an "opinion", not a "ruling").

It will be up to the president as to whether to accept or reject such an opinion.

If rejected, then it can be appealed upwards to the next level. The president should declare in his proclamation that only a judgment by the full appellate court (NOT a 3-judge panel) will be binding -- and ONLY within the confines of that district -- AGAIN, IF the president chooses to accept the ruling.

And after that, we're left with the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, this is going to carry more weight, but I've come to the (very personal) conclusion that even the 9 justices in their black robes should not be entrusted to dictate final decisions before the American people.

Rather, in matters of national social and cultural importance, any U.S. Supreme Court decision should be "annullable-cancelable" by a vote of the U.S. Congress and Senate.
===============

So... Bigun... DC Patriot... RinVA... if you're reading this, what say you to it?

Marbury v. Madison was a MISTAKE.
It should never have been permitted to stand.
That can be fixed, if Mr. Trump has the will and intestinal fortitude to do so.

[MeganC]

Why am I the ONLY ONE in this forum stating what must be done?

Two hundred and fifty years ago today our Founders took up arms and went to war against their legal and sovereign government. By force of arms and at a price in blood they overthrew their rulers and instituted the best possible system of governance in human history.

We are losing that legacy and we lose it with every jackass who insists that no matter how absurd or even patently illegal that all court orders must be slavishly obeyed. 

As someone once said on Free Republic the Holocaust was perfectly legal. And it was! Laws were passed enabling this atrocity and courts upheld it when they didn't ignore it outright.

The government behind that atrocity perished in fire and blood. As it deserved to.

Many of its leaders were hung at the end of a rope. As they deserved to.

Many of its minions perished in firing squads. As they deserved to.

The same fate should likewise await those who would usurp our system of governance and replace it with unelected bureaucrats, clever lawyers in black robes, and criminals who conspire and whisper against liberty from the shadows.

Must we wait for things to get as bad as they did for the Jews in Germany?

A quote:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

[rustynail]

Trump is in a tight spot.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Trump is in a tight spot.

only the Left believes that.

The majority of Americans support him.

[Smokin Joe]

Not our problem.  If they didn't want to be deported to El Salvador, then they shouldn't have entered the US illegally and forfeited the due process of asylum through their own actions (or lack thereof).

If Bill Clinton can send Elian Gonzales back to Cuba without even granting him an asylum hearing, then Donald Trump can damn sure deport anyone entering the country illegally and allowing the asylum limitation statute expire.

QFT!

[kevindavis007]

The great American experiment ends here.

Something tells me you hate the Constitution.



 

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1913551314161656077

Yes, Herr Trump should just ignore the checks and balances

[Free Vulcan]

Something tells me you hate the Constitution.
 

Now if you could only repeal that pesky 13th Amendment, you could build your cheap Iphones here.

[MeganC]

Yes, Herr Trump should just ignore the checks and balances

No, President Trump should insist on the checks and balances and tell the goddamned courts to stop trying to run the country.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Something tells me you hate the Constitution.

I see you've started naming the voices in your head.  Good ---- this should keep you busy. 

[DCPatriot]

I see you've started naming the voices in your head.  Good ---- this should keep you busy.

    

[kevindavis007]

I see you've started naming the voices in your head.  Good ---- this should keep you busy.

You think we should be like El Salvador, Hungary, or Russia? Pick your favorite facist country and move there!

[kevindavis007]

https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1913632038046871987

@Right_in_Virginia


Of course you Magaoids love Andrew Jackson. He tanked the economy, blew up the national bank, and left behind a bad depression that made his successor a one-term joke. He ignored the courts, ruled by ego, and turned the presidency into a circus of spite. But hey, he yelled loudly and punched down — exactly your kind of “leadership.” Just a reminder he was a DEMOCRAT. Just like Herr Trump is.

[kevindavis007]

No, President Trump should insist on the checks and balances and tell the goddamned courts to stop trying to run the country.

@MeganC




Yes, nothing says “checks and balances” like demanding the courts shut up and do what they're told. I’m sure Madison is doing cartwheels in his grave.

[kevindavis007]

Now if you could only repeal that pesky 13th Amendment, you could build your cheap Iphones here.

@Free Vulcan


Nah, I’m not into slave labor — I just don’t feel like shelling out $9,000 for an iPhone built in some bloated union shop where half the money goes to a useless union boss stuffing his face at a steakhouse and the rest slips into an “envelope” for his buddies in the mob. If that’s your idea of ethical labor, so be it — just don’t expect me to pretend it’s noble while I’m getting fleeced.

[Canuck Conservative]

Of course you Magaoids love Andrew Jackson. He tanked the economy, ... and left behind a bad depression ...

Not sure you can single out Jackson for that ... depressions were a regular feature in the 1800s, almost like clockwork every 20 years.

There were "panics" (followed by depressions) in 1837, 1857, 1873, and 1893, usually started by private-bank failures. (The last one was the deepest, for a long time it was known as "the Great Depression", until the 1930s topped it).

[The_Reader_David]

only the Left believes that.

The majority of Americans support him.

Majority support is not an argument for doing away with due process of law.  There are reasons the Founders put anti-democratic measures in the Constitution, like super-majority and ratification requirements for amendments to the Constitution, the unelected Supreme Court, limiting on the suspension of "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" to times of war or rebellion, and all of the aspects of due processes and the enumeration of some natural rights as things the Federal Government could not infringe in the Bill of Rights.  As Kevin Williamson described the "here's a list of things you idiots don't get to vote on".  (Too bad the Progressives got rid of indirect election of Senators.)

[Free Vulcan]

@Free Vulcan
Nah, I’m not into slave labor — I just don’t feel like shelling out $9,000 for an iPhone built in some bloated union shop where half the money goes to a useless union boss stuffing his face at a steakhouse and the rest slips into an “envelope” for his buddies in the mob. If that’s your idea of ethical labor, so be it — just don’t expect me to pretend it’s noble while I’m getting fleeced.

Spare me the red herring. Only 10% of our labor force is unionized, so the likelihood of your bloviated scenario is pretty nil. But you have a mind of a frat boy so no surprise.

If you want super cheap stuff, slave labor is the way to do it. You have no problem with the Chinese doing it, so why not move it over here and save transportation costs?

[The_Reader_David]

I think you should all remember that the actual text of the Fifth Amendment includes,

"... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...

(emphasis added).

Notice, person, not citizen. 

It is for this reason that the courts are correct in their intervention against Trump's deportations which were proceeding without due process of law.  If we cease to be a government of laws rather than of men, liberty is lost whether it is Biden or Trump or Trump's successsor from whichever party who is casting aside legal niceties.  Everyone on this board ('Rat trolls excepted) was horrified by Obama and Biden abolishing due process for male college students accused of sexual misconduct.  The same horror should apply to abolishing due process for people accused of being in the US illegally, or of being members of some Latin American gang.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Majority support is not an argument for doing away with due process of law. 

You miss the point entirely.

The Constitution is the Law.  In it there is zero reference to any court, whether it is Supreme or otherwise, being the sole arbiter of what is contained within that document.

Only the Judicial branch has taken it upon itself to declare only IT can do so.

To have the only unelected branch of government to be the sole arbiter without input from the other two branches which are actually elected into office, and tellingly is the only branch where the individuals enjoy lifetime tenure, is the very definition of tyranny, ie - rule by other than the people.  To accept this, Judiciary is the permanent king of our country.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If you want super cheap stuff, slave labor is the way to do it. You have no problem with the Chinese doing it, so why not move it over here and save transportation costs?

As well as buying it tariff-free/

[Canuck Conservative]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

But someone who has already had their immigration hearing and has been ordered deported has already had their "due process of law", correct?

(Trump Admin needs to secure this point at the SC!)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think you should all remember that the actual text of the Fifth Amendment includes,

"... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...

(emphasis added).

Notice, person, not citizen. 

It is for this reason that the courts are correct in their intervention against Trump's deportations which were proceeding without due process of law.  If we cease to be a government of laws rather than of men, liberty is lost whether it is Biden or Trump or Trump's successsor from whichever party who is casting aside legal niceties.  Everyone on this board ('Rat trolls excepted) was horrified by Obama and Biden abolishing due process for male college students accused of sexual misconduct.  The same horror should apply to abolishing due process for people accused of being in the US illegally, or of being members of some Latin American gang.

Really, really stretching things in your selective referencing, aren't you?

I suppose you also wish to stretch Art I Sec 2 be not only for citizens either so non-citizens can select our representation.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

[Hoodat]

I think you should all remember that the actual text of the Fifth Amendment includes,

"... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...

(emphasis added).

Notice, person, not citizen.

No one is being deprived life, liberty, or property.  No one.

It is for this reason that the courts are correct in their intervention against Trump's deportations which were proceeding without due process of law.

"Due Process of Law" is a two-way street.  "Due Process of Law" means that they abide by current US law.  It means that they seek residency legally.  And in the event they cross the border illegally, "Due Process of Law" dictates that they file asylum claims within 12 months of entry.  And if these guidelines were not followed, then "Due Process of Law" dictates that they can be prosecuted and/or deported.  So all this talk of deportations not following "Due Process of Law" is pure unadulterated bullshit.

If we cease to be a government of laws rather than of men, liberty is lost whether it is Biden or Trump or Trump's successsor from whichever party who is casting aside legal niceties.

Let me see if I understand this correctly.  When these people illegally entered this country by the hundreds of thousands, no "Due Process of Law" was required.  No residency application.  No legal entry permit.  All legal requirements waived by fiat.  Yet when it comes to correcting this, you now insist that each one of these "illegal" aliens be granted a hearing?  Yeah, right.

Everyone on this board ('Rat trolls excepted) was horrified by Obama and Biden abolishing due process for male college students accused of sexual misconduct.

Care to expand on that?  Where are these male college students accused of sexual misconduct that were deported, much less denied due process?

[Hoodat]

Majority support is not an argument for doing away with due process of law.

Neither is lying about doing away with due process of law an argument for doing away with Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution.

[Fishrrman]

Might as well say it plainly:

I don't believe that illegals should be subject to the same Constitutional "protections" that citizens and legally resident aliens enjoy. No more than would be the soldiers of an invading army, or foreign terrorists.

I don't believe in such "equality" any longer.
Life has taught me otherwise.

Sorry if you don't like this post.

[Sighlass]

I think you should all remember that the actual text of the Fifth Amendment includes,

"... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...

Obviously the "person" is a legal citizen of the US... otherwise with super wide interpretation as you used. This would apply to people in other countries that we have no authorization over.