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

[groundloop]

Source: AP News

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.

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

---

[Botany]

1. " the migrants still must get a chance to challenge their deportation..."

And how are they going to do that from a Prison in El Salvador?

Throw them in with real thugs, murders, and gangsters and guess what? They end up dead
and or beaten into submission. No doubt that the Krasnov administration has our people
from the El Salvadoran Embassy checking up on those people’s welfare all the time.





I wonder how much money the President of El Salvador is getting along with his cronies?
Is MBS paying the bills?

[2naSalit]

13. It's just a...

Fucking set up to make it LOOK like they are trying to play by the rules.

Fuck the scotus, they have proven their worthlessness.

[Lovie777]

2. Texas.....

enough said.

[MichMan]

4. That is where they are being detained is the reasoning

[dpibel]

5. The word you're looking for

is "rationale."

[bluestarone]

6. Well, where do the appeals go to?

Trump has 6 judges in the 5th circuit court of appeals???

[Cheezoholic]

10. That's the skinny on this one. The 5th serves up fascism on a golden platter n/t

[DET]

3. Figures

All of the women voted for justice. All of the men did not. And Texas? WTF.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. 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.

The main benefit of the Alien Enemies Act was the claim by the DOJ that no Due Process had to be given to the deportees. This opinion is clear that detainees must be given due process.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Not the actual title of the article. . . nt

[groundloop]

9. WAS the actual title at the time it was posted.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. 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

[Katinfl]

14. I thought the AEA Act was to be used when we were at war with a country.

Was that even mentioned in the decision? Last I knew, we are not at war with Venezuala.

[24601]

15. There are three conditions, any one of which authorize use of AEA.

The first is during a declared war. The second is an invasion. The third is in the event of a predatory incursion.

What will be fought out in the courts is whether Tren de Aragua is entwined in any elements of the Venezuelan government. Another issue I believe will eventually be adjudicated is whether this law can be applied against Foreign Terrorist Organizations that are not state-supported.

FTO designations didn't exist when John Adams signed the act into law. When passed, the concern wasn't the British but the French.

Applying its provisions concerning FTOs presumes that the Constitution and statutes aren't static, but are instead living documents that evolve with the times. Textualists logically should argue that AEA would not apply absent FTO connections to a foreign government.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/alien.asp

[Wonder Why]

16. I'm glad. That means that when donnie's gone, the SCROTUS 6 can be deported to Antartica.