Law Supreme Court Blocks Further Deportation of Migrants Under Alien Enemies Act

Hog-train

Silver Belt
Joined
Nov 26, 2003
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
16,212

Supreme Court, for Now, Blocks Deportation of Migrants Under Wartime Law

More than 50 Venezuelans were believed to be scheduled to be flown out of the country, presumably to El Salvador, from an immigration detention center in Anson, Texas.

Alan FeuerHamed AleazizAbbie VanSickle
By Alan FeuerHamed Aleaziz and Abbie VanSickle
  • Published April 18, 2025Updated April 19, 2025
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration early Saturday from deporting another group of Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members under the expansive powers of a rarely invoked wartime 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 court said in a brief, unsigned order that gave no reasoning, as is typical in emergency cases.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, with Justice Alito saying he would issue a statement later.

Late Saturday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to “dissolve” the temporary block and allow lower courts to weigh in on the matter before intervening further in the case.

More than 50 Venezuelans were scheduled to be flown out of the country — presumably to El Salvador — from an immigration detention center in Anson, Texas, according to two people with knowledge of the situation. The American Civil Liberties Union in recent days had already secured court orders barring similar deportations under the law, the Alien Enemies Act, in other places including New York, Denver and Brownsville, Texas.

Two guards stand in front of a large cement wall and under blue letters that say CECOT.

The maximum-security penitentiary in San Vicente, El Salvador, where many deported migrants have been taken, earlier this month. Credit...Alex Peña/Getty Images

The situation in Anson was urgent enough that A.C.L.U. lawyers mounted challenges in three different courts within five hours on Friday.

The lawyers started with an emergency filing in Federal District Court in Abilene, Texas, in which they claimed that officers at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson had started distributing notices to Venezuelan immigrants informing them that they could face deportation as soon as Friday night.

They asked Judge James Wesley Hendrix, who is overseeing the case, to issue an immediate order protecting all migrants in the Northern District of Texas who might face deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. When Judge Hendrix did not grant their request quickly — and later rejected it entirely — the lawyers filed a similar request to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.

The lawyers then filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to step in and issue an immediate pause on any deportations because many of the Venezuelan men had “already been loaded on to buses, presumably headed to the airport.”

“These men were close to spending their lives in a horrific foreign prison without ever having had any due process,” Lee Gelernt, the lead A.C.L.U. attorney on the case, said on Saturday. “The case has a long way to go. But for now, we are relieved that the court has not allowed the Trump administration to hurry them away in secret.”

Immigration lawyers have been playing a high-stakes game of cat and mouse with the federal government since President Trump issued a proclamation last month invoking the Alien Enemies Act as a way to deport immigrants he claims are members of Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan street gang. The law, which was passed in 1798, has been used only three times before in U.S. history, during periods of declared war.

The efforts by groups like the A.C.L.U. to stop deportations under the act were complicated this month by a Supreme Court ruling that found that anyone subject to the statute needed to be given the opportunity to challenge their removal, but only in the places where they were being detained.

The decision by the justices set off a hunt for anyone who might fall under the authority of Mr. Trump’s proclamation. The A.C.L.U., hoping to come up with a system for determining where those people might be, has asked a federal judge in Washington to issue a nationwide order forcing the government to provide 30 days’ notice to anyone in the country before officials seek to remove them under the Alien Enemies Act.

During a hearing on Friday evening in front of the judge in Washington, James E. Boasberg, Mr. Gelernt said that he was prepared to file what amounted to pre-emptive lawsuits in all of the more than 90 federal judicial districts across the country in an effort to ensure that no Venezuelan migrants were deported without hearings under the act.

Drew C. Ensign, a lawyer for the Justice Department, gave his word that no flights were scheduled to depart from the Bluebonnet center on Friday night or Saturday morning, adding that the migrants there would be given at least 24 hours’ notice before they were deported.

But Judge Boasberg was somewhat skeptical of Mr. Ensign’s assertion, pointing out that the notice forms the government had given to the Venezuelan men did not contain an explicit statement that they were able to challenge their deportations.

There is a history here: In mid-March, during the first hearing to consider the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, Judge Boasberg ordered Trump officials to pause all of the deportation flights it had sent out under the act. But despite his instructions, two planes left Texas and landed in El Salvador. A third plane from Texas holding people whose deportations were not under the act also arrived in El Salvador. In all, more than 200 deportees were stranded in prison there.

Judge Boasberg is now considering opening a contempt investigation into whether the administration violated his order, although an appeals court temporarily put that plan on hold on Friday night. Still, he declined on Friday night to issue a new order stopping deportation flights from northern Texas in part because of jurisdictional concerns that other courts were already mulling the same question.

This latest iteration of the fight over the use of the Alien Enemies Act began on Wednesday when the A.C.L.U. filed suit in Abilene on behalf of two Venezuelan migrants being held at the Bluebonnet facility, asking Judge Hendrix to shield them against deportation. But the judge denied the request, largely because lawyers for the Justice Department told him that the men — known only by their initials, A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. — had not yet been scheduled for removal from the country.

But then on Friday, other Venezuelan migrants at the detention center were informed that they were facing imminent deportation, court papers say. One of them, known as F.G.M., was instructed to sign a removal waiver in English, even though he speaks only Spanish, the papers say.

When he refused to sign, immigration officers told him the waiver was “coming from the president,” according to court papers, “and that he will be deported even if he did not sign it.”

Among those at the Bluebonnet detention center that the A.C.L.U. is seeking to protect from deportation is a 19-year-old known as Y.S.M.

Y.S.M., court papers say, was arrested by immigration agents on March 14 and was sent to the Bluebonnet facility this week. When the agents initially questioned him, court papers say, they told him that a photograph on Facebook showing him in the presence of another person holding a gun proved he was a member of Tren de Aragua.

But according to his lawyer, Y.S.M. informed the agents that what they believed to be a gun was actually a water pistol.

A spokeswoman for the president of El Salvador, Wendy Ramos, did not respond to a request for confirmation of an upcoming flight.

Since March 15, the Trump administration has sent five flights carrying deportees to El Salvador under a deal with its president, Nayib Bukele, to hold detainees deemed by U.S. authorities to be part of criminal gangs in his country’s prison system, for a fee.
 
Honestly, I’m relieved. The Supreme Court just blocked Trump’s deportation order using this ancient law from 1798—the Alien Enemies Act—and what really caught me off guard is that all three of Trump’s own appointees went against him. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all sided with the liberals to stop this.

That’s huge. These aren’t random moderates—they’re his picks. And they still said, “No, you can’t just deport people without due process.” That tells me there’s still some backbone in the system. At least some people in power are drawing a line when things go too far.

I’m just glad the Court stepped in. For once, it feels like the guardrails are holding.
 
What's being laid bare for the world to see is that America does not have the political, legal or constitutional controls in place to prevent an overbearing tyrant from doing disgraceful things.

Sort your shit out, guys.
 
What's being laid bare for the world to see is that America does not have the political, legal or constitutional controls in place to prevent an overbearing tyrant from doing disgraceful things.

Sort your shit out, guys.
I'm not exactly optimistic about the guard rails holding but this is an example where they have so kind of odd to say that in response to SCOTUS blocking Trump's move.

I would also counter by pointing out that the US constitution is currently the oldest extant constitution in the world and that the US, despite Trump's efforts, is still the most wealthy and powerful country in the world so clearly our constitutional experiment has mostly worked out well despite some hiccups here and there.
 
What's being laid bare for the world to see is that America does not have the political, legal or constitutional controls in place to prevent an overbearing tyrant from doing disgraceful things.

Sort your shit out, guys.
No, what's being laid bare is that President has significant power over the day to day operation of the government and the label of "the most powerful man on the planet" isn't pure hyperbole.

Disgraceful and illegal aren't the same thing and our laws aren't intended to prevent disgraceful things so long as they are lawful. The world has been accustomed to Presidents who don't wield their power this aggressively and so many of us have forgotten just how much power there actually is.

That said...I can't wait for this administration to be gone.
 
I'm not exactly optimistic about the guard rails holding but this is an example where they have so kind of odd to say that in response to SCOTUS blocking Trump's move.

I would also counter by pointing out that the US constitution is currently the oldest extant constitution in the world and that the US, despite Trump's efforts, is still the most wealthy and powerful country in the world so clearly our constitutional experiment has mostly worked out well despite some hiccups here and there.

To be fair, every single time I read "has temporarily blocked" my assumption is it will be overturned quickly and everything will resume because the judges seem bought and paid for.

When the courts do make a demand, like bring that dude back, Trump just shrugs and says "nah".
 
To be fair, every single time I read "has temporarily blocked" my assumption is it will be overturned quickly and everything will resume because the judges seem bought and paid for.
Well there is no higher level of appeal here, SCOTUS has spoken so that's that. Of course the courts don't have any enforcement mechanism so the scary possibility is what happens if the Trump regime ignores courts orders. In all likelihood they already have with the initial round of deportations under the AEA but they at least tried to come up with plausible deniability there, if they openly defy the courts and Congress sits back and does nothing then we would be well within the territory of a constitutional crisis if we're not already there as is.
 
Well there is no higher level of appeal here, SCOTUS has spoken so that's that. Of course the courts don't have any enforcement mechanism so the scary possibility is what happens if the Trump regime ignores courts orders. In all likelihood they already have with the initial round of deportations under the AEA but they at least tried to come up with plausible deniability there, if they openly defy the courts and Congress sits back and does nothing then we would be well within the territory of a constitutional crisis if we're not already there as is.

I'd be very impressed and surprised if Trump followed the rules or if someone made him.

Personally, I doubt he will. At least in any serious sense. Why would he?

When a leader is blatantly disregarding what your country stands for, you should be able to remove them easily as we did with Boris Johnson.
 
To be fair, every single time I read "has temporarily blocked" my assumption is it will be overturned quickly and everything will resume because the judges seem bought and paid for.

When the courts do make a demand, like bring that dude back, Trump just shrugs and says "nah".
This news doesn't look good for you or your AV.
<BC1>
 
I'm not exactly optimistic about the guard rails holding but this is an example where they have so kind of odd to say that in response to SCOTUS blocking Trump's move.

I would also counter by pointing out that the US constitution is currently the oldest extant constitution in the world and that the US, despite Trump's efforts, is still the most wealthy and powerful country in the world so clearly our constitutional experiment has mostly worked out well despite some hiccups here and there.

It's all fun and games until he decides to ignore the court order.

I'm not confident that anything would happen if he did. The DOJ would obviously do nothing. It might be up to Congress to remove him from office at that point. They likely wouldn't have enough votes to pass the articles of impeachment in the House.
 
This news doesn't look good for you or your AV.
<BC1>

My confidence is growing by the day. We haven't yet seen the limits of the Orange Ogre's Overreach!

But if all else fails, I have faith that one of his white DEI picks will oopsiedaisy someone straight to El Salvador!
 
Last edited:
To be fair, every single time I read "has temporarily blocked" my assumption is it will be overturned quickly and everything will resume because the judges seem bought and paid for.

When the courts do make a demand, like bring that dude back, Trump just shrugs and says "nah".
I believe it's technically it's within his authority to do so. The Supreme Court relies on the Executive Brance to enforce their decisions.

Back in 1830, the Supreme Court made a ruling Andrew Jackson disagreed with. So Jackson just says something like "let them enforce it then" and proceeded to go against the ruling.
 
Either everyone gets due process, or the entire system is vulnerable. History shows just how easy it is for a govt to recategorize a group of people. First it's people that don't look like you, then it's people that look like you but don't think like you, then eventually it's just any dissenting voice.
 
I'd be very impressed and surprised if Trump followed the rules or if someone made him.

Personally, I doubt he will. At least in any serious sense. Why would he?

When a leader is blatantly disregarding what your country stands for, you should be able to remove them easily as we did with Boris Johnson.
This is my great fear because I think it could push the country over the edge if we face that degree of constitutional crisis. If he breaks in the wrong direction it could push him over the edge too. I could see him leaning that way on lots of levels and in lots of ways.
 
Back
Top