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

[fortheo]

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.

I believe that by law, the US marshal service is meant to enforce the courts decisions. The problem, though, is that the US marshal service is under Trump's DOJ, so if we come to a point where the trump admin openly goes against the courts, the US marshal service is going to need to make a decision about what/who they're actually loyal to -- the law, or trump.

 

[Domitian]

I believe that by law, the US marshal service is meant to enforce the courts decisions. The problem, though, is that the US marshal service is under Trump's DOJ, so if we come to a point where the trump admin openly goes against the courts, the US marshal service is going to need to make a decision about what/who they're actually loyal to -- the law, or trump.

Right, the Marshal Service is under the DOJ which is executive branch. The loyalty part is a bit of a conundrum, because by law they are mandated to follow the orders of the President as are all other agencies in the executive branch.

 

[fortheo]

Right, the Marshal Service is under the DOJ which is executive branch. The loyalty part is a bit of a conundrum, because by law they are mandated to follow the orders of the President as are all other agencies in the executive branch.

Above all else, their primary role and legal obligation is to enforce the orders of the courts. It's literally the first thing listed in the law about the powers of US Marshals. So yes, it would be a conundrum indeed if they went off books.

 

[Domitian]

Above all else, their primary role is to enforce the orders of the courts. It's literally the first thing listed in the law about the powers of US Marshals. So yes, it would be a conundrum indeed.

I mean, if they refuse to comply with the Presidents orders and break the law, the President has immediate grounds to remove them and possibly prosecute them.

But then I think there's also a workaround, because the President could likely just delegate their responsibilities to another agency in the executive branch to enforce his will.

 

[fortheo]

I mean, if they refuse to comply with the Presidents orders and break the law, the President has immediate grounds to remove them and possibly prosecute them.

But then I think there's also a workaround, because the President could likely just delegate their responsibilities to another agency in the executive branch to enforce his will.

Yeah. It's a mess. Also, looking into it, If the Marshals don't fulfill their legal obligation to enforce court orders, the courts have other options:

"Because of the marshals’ long and honorable history of respecting their legal obligation to enforce federal courts orders, the courts have rarely, if ever, had to turn to other parties to have their orders enforced. If forced to do so, however, individuals from court security officers and probation officers to local police and sheriffs have the training and experience to bring contemnors into court. And unlike the marshals, these individuals would be responsible to the court alone.

Even a rogue marshal’s service, in other words, is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. If courts have the courage, the legal tools are there."

If the Marshals Go Rogue, Courts Have Other Ways to Enforce their Orders

Opinion | Even a rogue marshal’s service is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law.

www.democracydocket.com

 

[Jacket time]

Trump will likely refuse to comply which will lead to a serious legal battle

they will be removed regardless, 70% of America supports it

 

[Hog-train]

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'm starting to believe Trump's camp wants the Supreme Court to rule on the Alien Enemies Act and that was the goal from the beginning.

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.

If it came to that point, Congress will step in IMO.

 

[avenue94]

I'm starting to believe Trump's camp wants the Supreme Court to rule on the Alien Enemies Act and that was the goal from the beginning.



If it came to that point, Congress will step in IMO.

You mean the Congess that has let Trump unconstitutionally usurp its powers on tariffs and the AEA already, not to mention put us in this mess by refusing to back his impeachment?

 

[fedoriswar37]

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.

Barrett always goes against Trump.

 

[Hog-train]

You mean the Congess that has let Trump unconstitutionally usurp its powers on tariffs and the AEA already, not to mention put us in this mess by refusing to back his impeachment?

The executive branch has the ability to levy tariffs for national security purposes. It's literally the law.

 

[avenue94]

The executive branch has the ability to levy tariffs for national security purposes. It's literally the law.

Which law are you referring to exactly, and which part of it?

 

[terrapin]

they will be removed regardless, 70% of America supports it

its not that they are being removed. its how they are being removed illegally without due process while innocent people... even citizens... get caught in the crossfire.

 

[HockeyBjj]

If it came to that point, Congress will step in IMO.

Congress republicans are all clapping seals for Trump. I don’t think they step in at all.

Any republicans who has even slightly gone against trump has been immediately booted.

 

[nixkid]

The executive branch has the ability to levy tariffs for national security purposes. It's literally the law.

National emergencies...not national security.

Trump literally just made up an "emergency". First he declared a national emergency over fentanyl/border security in order levy tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Then he declared the trade deficit a national emergency so he could levy tariffs on every country in the world. None of these things are emergencies that require the executive branch to act without congressional approval.

 

[Hog-train]

National emergencies...not national security.

Trump literally just made up an "emergency". First he declared a national emergency over fentanyl/border security in order levy tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Then he declared the trade deficit a national emergency so he could levy tariffs on every country in the world. None of these things are emergencies that require the executive branch to act without congressional approval.

That's literally not true. Congress delegated the executive branch to levy tariffs to combat unfair practices or national security.

In fact, there are several different laws that allows the President to impose tariffs under various conditions.

Can the President Impose Tariffs Without Congressional Approval?

Can the President Impose Tariffs without Congressional Approval?

www.millercanfield.com

 

[nixkid]

That's literally not true. Congress delegated the executive branch to levy tariffs to combat unfair practices or national security.

In fact, there are several different laws that allows the President to impose tariffs under various conditions.

Can the President Impose Tariffs Without Congressional Approval?

Can the President Impose Tariffs without Congressional Approval?

www.millercanfield.com

Then why did he waste time declaring a national emergency that invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977?

Here is the declaration:

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security

PURSUING RECIPROCITY TO REBUILD THE ECONOMY AND RESTORE NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY: Today, President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and

www.whitehouse.gov

They explicitly say that they are using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Relevant quote is here:

• President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.

The IEEPA gives the President the authority to levy tariffs only after declaring a national emergency

"The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted October 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States."

International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So basically, you're saying he doesn't need to declare an emergency to levy tariffs because some other law gives him the power to do it. Yet he decided to use the IEEPA and declare a national emergency. And he did this for what reason? For shits and giggles? Maybe to trigger the libs?

 

[Hog-train]

Then why did he waste time declaring a national emergency that invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977?

Here is the declaration:

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security

PURSUING RECIPROCITY TO REBUILD THE ECONOMY AND RESTORE NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY: Today, President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and

www.whitehouse.gov

They explicitly say that they are using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Relevant quote is here:

• President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.

The IEEPA gives the President the authority to levy tariffs only after declaring a national emergency

"The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted October 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States."

International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So basically, you're saying he doesn't need to declare an emergency to levy tariffs because some other law gives him the power to do it. Yet he decided to use the IEEPA and declare a national emergency. And he did this for what reason? For shits and giggles? Maybe to trigger the libs?

Doesn't change the fact that there are several different laws that allow the executive branch to levy tariffs.

You said they were only allowed if it was a national emergency, but these laws clearly show they're allowed to do it in response to unfair trade practices.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974
Section 122 authorizes the president to impose unilaterally across-the-board tariffs without congressional approval of up to 15% on all imports to mitigate a serious balance-of-payments deficits. The tariff may last for a maximum period of 150 days, after which Congress must approve continuation of the tariff.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
Section 301 grants the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) authority to investigate unfair foreign trade practices and remedy by imposing tariffs and other trade restrictions. Unfair foreign trade practices include unjustifiable or unreasonable acts, policies, or practices of a foreign country that burden U.S. commerce.
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930
Section 338 permits the president to issue a proclamation to impose new duties on countries that the president determines either (i) impose an “unreasonable charge, exaction, regulation, or limitation” which discriminates against U.S. products, or (ii) discriminate in fact against the commerce of the United States “directly or indirectly, by law or administrative regulation, or practice” to “disadvantage” U.S. commerce compared to commerce of any foreign country. Upon finding discrimination, the president may impose 50% ad valorem tariffs on the imported products from the discriminating countries.

 

[Khaosan]

You know things are bad when Joe Rogan is speaking on the dangers of this.

 

[lsa]

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114377993807616549

I’m doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our Country, but the Courts don’t seem to want me to do that. My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which I have such great respect for, but which seemingly doesn’t want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other Country, for that matter — People that came here illegally! The Courts are intimidated by the Radical Left who are, “playing the Ref.” Great Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito correctly wants to dissolve the pause on deportations. He is right on this! If we don’t get these criminals out of our Country, we are not going to have a Country any longer. We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years. We would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals we are sending out of the Country. Such a thing is not possible to do. What a ridiculous situation we are in. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

 

[nixkid]

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974
Section 122 authorizes the president to impose unilaterally across-the-board tariffs without congressional approval of up to 15% on all imports to mitigate a serious balance-of-payments deficits. The tariff may last for a maximum period of 150 days, after which Congress must approve continuation of the tariff.

Well considering the fact that he imposed tariffs higher then 15% (much higher in some cases) on many countries...its fair to say that this doesn't apply.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
Section 301 grants the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) authority to investigate unfair foreign trade practices and remedy by imposing tariffs and other trade restrictions. Unfair foreign trade practices include unjustifiable or unreasonable acts, policies, or practices of a foreign country that burden U.S. commerce.
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930

I don't fully understand it but the process sounds a bit more involved than "the President can just unilaterally decide to impose tariffs on any country". Sounds like its mostly used to encourage foreign government to enforce IP rights for American companies and/or punish countries for breaking existing trade agreements.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930
Section 338 permits the president to issue a proclamation to impose new duties on countries that the president determines either (i) impose an “unreasonable charge, exaction, regulation, or limitation” which discriminates against U.S. products, or (ii) discriminate in fact against the commerce of the United States “directly or indirectly, by law or administrative regulation, or practice” to “disadvantage” U.S. commerce compared to commerce of any foreign country. Upon finding discrimination, the president may impose 50% ad valorem tariffs on the imported products from the discriminating countries.

Apparently that is limited to 50% and Trump imposed tariffs higher than 50% on several countries.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-may-dust-off-1930-trade-discrimination-law-back-reciprocal-us-tariffs-2025-02-12/

"The law, threatened but never used to impose tariffs, appears only sporadically in government records. It allows the president to impose duties of up to 50% against imports from countries that are found to discriminate against U.S. commerce."

Since its clear that this is going to devolve into semantics. How about this? The President can impose tariffs without declaring a national emergency within certain limits. Trump's tariffs exceeded those limits in certain cases and therefore required him to use the IEEPA and make up a bullshit national emergency. At the end of the day, he didn't use those laws. He used the IEEPA and I'm pretty sure that was done for a reason.