Supreme Court extends block on some Alien Enemies Act deportation flights

[mystery-ak]

 Supreme Court extends block on some Alien Enemies Act deportation flights
by Zach Schonfeld and Rebecca Beitsch - 05/16/25 4:05 PM ET

The Supreme Court extended its order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from swiftly deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members being detained in portions of Texas, chastising the administration for not giving them more due process.

Over the dissents of conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the emergency decision prevents authorities from removing the migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as a legal challenge proceeds, a win for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is suing on the migrants’ behalf.

But the justices declined the ACLU’s additional request to leapfrog the lower courts to immediately take up  the issue of whether President Trump can invoke the rarely used law outside of wartime.

Instead, the case will return to the lower courts alongside a handful of other challenges being brought by the civil rights group around the country. The issue could ultimately return to the justices, who directed the lower courts to act “expeditiously.”

In its opinion, the justices blasted the Trump administration for giving as little as 24 hours notice before whisking migrants away to a foreign prison, from which the White House argues they are unable to secure their return. 

“Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the court wrote in its unsigned opinion. 

“But it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. We remand the case to the Fifth Circuit for that purpose,” the opinion continued.

The decision, however, still sidesteps the merits of the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s second appointee to the court, said he would’ve taken up those weighty issues immediately.

“To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given,” the court’s opinion states.

In dissent, Alito criticized his colleagues for what he described as overreach by the high court.

“From the Court’s order, it is not entirely clear whether the Court has silently decided issues that go beyond the question of interim relief. (I certainly hope that it has not.) But if it has done so, today’s order is doubly extraordinary,” wrote Alito, joined by Thomas.

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5304654-supreme-court-alien-enemies-act-deportations/

[DefiantMassRINO]

Due process (with lawyer present):

1.) Do you have proof of American citizenship?
2.) Do you have proof of being a legal American resident?
3.) Do you have proof that you entered the United States lawfully?
4.) Have you used a Social Security Number not officially provided to you by the US Department of Health and Human Services?

Bye-bye-bye

[mystery-ak]

SCOTUS Punts on Alien Enemies Act, Says Gangsters Deserve Time to Hire Lawyers

The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must provide alleged Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members with more notice, prior to deporting them under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA).

In a 7-2 decision on Friday, the Supreme Court found that Venezuelan migrants facing deportation under the AEA had not received enough notice regarding their deportation, while also not weighing in on whether or not the Trump administration was able to deport suspect illegal alien gang members, according to CNBC.

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the majority justices wrote in the ruling.

Justice Alito, whom Justice Thomas joined, said the court has no role in setting rules for the AEA implementation

“I cannot join the decision of the Court,” Alito said. “First and most important, we lack jurisdiction and therefore have no authority to issue any relief. Second, even if we had such authority, the applicants have not satisfied the requirements for the issuance of injunctive relief pending appellate review.”

Per the Hill, the Supreme Court’s decision represents a “win” for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of suspected Venezuelan migrants who are suspected of being TdA gang members and are being detained in Texas:

    Over the dissents of conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the emergency decision prevents authorities from removing the migrants under the Alien Enemies Act as a legal challenge proceeds, a win for the American Civil Liberties (ACLU), which is suing on the migrants’ behalf.

“To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18, and we grant temporary injunctive relief to preserve our jurisdiction while the question of what notice is due is adjudicated,” the justice’s said in the ruling.

The justice’s also pointed out that the Trump administration “may remove the named plaintiffs or putative class members under other lawful authorities.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh partly dissented:

“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court,” Kavanaugh said. “At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather, consistent with the Executive Branch’s request for expedition—and as the detainees themselves urge—I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.”

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/05/16/scotus-punts-on-alien-enemies-act-says-gangsters-deserve-time-to-hire-lawyers/

[Wingnut]

They always punt.

[mystery-ak]

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Trump Administration in blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. However, the Court only did so based on the lack of notice (24 hours) afforded by the Administration. It did not rule on the legality of the use of the AEA...

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
2h
...The Court expressly stated: "To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18." ...


Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
2h
...That still leaves much to be decided including what notice is required: "it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. We remand the case to the Fifth Circuit for that purpose."


Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
2h
..Both the legality of using the act and the required notice remain undecided (beyond the fact that 24 hours is clearly not enough)...


Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
2h
...The court is pumping the brakes as a warning to the Administration that it must give these individuals and the courts more time to consider these issues.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This court is almost as useless as congress.

Make no decision, make no laws.

Just keep the country in an unacceptable smog condition

[mystery-ak]

Trump Slams SCOTUS for Ruling on Alien Enemies Act: ‘This Decision Will Let More Criminals Pour’ In

Elizabeth Weibel 16 May 2025

President Donald Trump criticized the Supreme Court for ruling that the Trump administration must provide suspected Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members with adequate notice before being deported under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA).

In a post on Truth Social, Trump criticized the 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court, noting that it would “let more criminals pour” into the United States. Trump added that the decision would “allow these people to commit many crimes before they even see the inside of a Courthouse” during this “long, protracted, and expensive legal process.”

“The Supreme Court has ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally, are not allowed to be forced out without going through a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person, and one that will allow these people to commit many crimes before they even see the inside of a Courthouse,” Trump wrote. “The result of this decision will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public.”

more
https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/05/16/ttrump-slams-scotus-for-ruling-on-alien-enemies-act-this-decision-will-let-more-criminals-pour-in/

[Fishrrman]

Wingnut punts with:
"They always punt."

I won't punt.
The justices of the Supreme Court -- and I don't care HOW MUCH you "respect" them or not -- cannot resolve this on their own.

As Mr. Alito said, "we lack jurisdiction and therefore have no authority to issue any relief."

So... if they CAN'T resolve the issue ....
Hmmmm STOP RIGHT THERE.

"The issue is never the issue. The issue is... the revolution."

Only this must be Mr. Trump's revolution, to restore proper balance between the U.S. Court system and the Executive branch.

That's why he needs to proclaim "the Trump Doctrine":
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.

Frankly, I don't even trust most of our "elected leaders" (do YOU?).
I'd rather see such matters put up to a national vote -- much like the Swiss people do RIGHT NOW.

(I will keep on posting this, because NO ONE ELSE in the forum offers a solution to the issue. Posted above is mine -- a "revolution" that tosses out Marbury v. Madison and creates "a new balance" at the highest levels of federal power.)