Alito/Thomas Slam Middle Of Night Alien Enemies Act Stay: Judiciary has “an obligation to follow the law”
Judiciary appears to be cracking under the weight of Democrat lawfare: “In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order.”
The emergency stay issued just after midnight Saturday morning, April 19, by the U.S. Supreme Court over the dissent of Justices Alito and Thomas, continues to reverberate. Some of the reactions were in our post, Supreme Court Halts All Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act.
The SCOTUS conduct was bizarre by any standard – reacting to a filing made on Friday night before a holiday weekend without giving the government any chance to respond. It reminded me of one of the earliest judicial excesses in the face of the pre-planned lawfare assault on the Trump administration, when a federal judge in NY sitting on the Emergency Calendar issued an ex parte TRO at 1 a.m. on a Saturday morning effectively decapitating the Treasury Department. (Another judge partially walked back that TRO the following week.)
The conduct of numerous District Court Judges has been emotional and reactive, but you don’t expect that from the Supreme Court.
Yet it happened.
In Justice Alito’s Dissenting Opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, he excoriated the Court for this reaction. Here is the Dissent, in part:
Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief. Proceeding under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. §1651, the Court ordered “[t]he Government” not to remove a “putative class of detainees” until this Court issues a superseding order. 604 U. S. ___ (2025). Although the order does not define the “putative class,” it appears that the Court means all members of the class that the habeas petitioners sought to have certified, namely, “[a]ll noncitizens in custody in the Northern District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled ‘Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua’ and/or its implementation.”* Motion for Class Certification in No. 1:25–cv– 59 (ND Tex., Apr. 16, 2025), ECF Doc. 3, p. 1. And although the Court does not specify what it means by “[t]he Government,” it appears that the term is intended to embrace all the named defendants, including the President. Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(d)(2).
***
The Court did all this even though:
- It is not clear that the Court had jurisdiction….
- It is questionable whether the applicants complied with the general obligation to seek emergency injunctive relief in the District Court before asking for such relief from an appellate court. Fed. Rules App. Proc. 8(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C). When the applicants requested such relief in the District Court, they insisted on a ruling within 45 minutes on Good Friday afternoon, and when the District Court did not act within 133 minutes, they filed a notice of appeal, which the District Court held deprived it of jurisdiction….
- The only papers before this Court were those submitted by the applicants. The Court had not ordered or received a response by the Government regarding either the applicants’ factual allegations or any of the legal issues presented by the application. And the Court did not have the benefit of a Government response filed in any of the lower courts either….
- The papers before us, while alleging that the applicants were in imminent danger of removal, provided little concrete support for that allegation….
- Although this Court did not hear directly from the Government regarding any planned deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in this matter, an attorney representing the Government in a different matter, J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 1:25–cv–766 (DC), informed the District Court in that case during a hearing yesterday evening that no such deportations were then planned to occur either yesterday, April 18, or today, April 19.
- Although the Court provided class-wide relief, the District Court never certified a class, and this Court has never held that class relief may be sought in a habeas proceeding.
In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.
Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures.
If SCOTUS is reacting emotionally early in the middle of the night while ignoring all norms, we’re really in trouble.
The judiciary appears to be cracking under the weight of the lawfare assault by Democrats.
I’m not sure SCOTUS issuing midnight directives to “the Government” (including the President?), without briefing, in a case in which the Court arguably lacked jurisdiction, is an enormous show of respect. It either goes both ways or it goes no way at all.
(H/t @TrentMcCotter for… https://t.co/xdtqru4CLY pic.twitter.com/gKzOHA9P7W
— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) April 20, 2025
A nation in which one administration can allow millions of unvetted illegal migrants into the country, but requires that a court vet each deportation decision in an individually adjudicated case will soon lose the values our democratic system was intended to preserve.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 19, 2025
Also the poisoned fruit of the Obamacare decision, when Democrats realized that if they threatened to burn it all down, they could intimidate the Chief Justice https://t.co/8isFtWoRtD
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) April 19, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Our republic is on the verge of collapsing driven by the judicial branch of all things. There is no way to undo things either given that the democrats are completely out of control as well.
As I’ve said before that’s the end of the Republic as we know it. The Judicial Coup is now complete and the un-elected judges on the judicial branch, with John Roberts and the U.S. Supreme Court at its head, now assumes complete control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Too bad that, it was a pretty good while it lasted. But like all good things we weren’t diligent enough to make sure it wouldn’t be taken from us. And here we are and there we go.
Re: “…. we weren’t diligent enough …..”
Correction: Trump was not diligent enough in his selection of three supposedly conservative judges. He had an opportunity granted to almost no Presidents to protect the future of our country and gave us this mess.
If you think these judges were selected by Trump I’ve got some green cheese from the moon you might be interested interested in 🙄
I suspect they were vetted by McConnell and the other rinos long before they got to Trump.
Trump may have been the president when these justices were confirmed, but he was also president when the Republicans in Congress, specifically the Senate, were not supporters and denied him his ability to enact his slate.
His nominees were those that his administration believed he could get through the process, and even then, those nominees weren’t exactly loved by Femocrats.
Otherwise I agree with your premise.
If the Senate won’t CONFIRM conservative judges, it doesn’t matter if Trump or any other President (specifically Saint Ron DeSantis) nominates them, Anyone who refuses to take that into account is a fool.
And you think a Thomas or Alito type judge would not have been borked?
The system of checks and balances is a good system but it does prevent someone from getting exactly what they want because they have to rely on the consent of others.
Trump also had nowhere near the political capital to get judges like Thomas and Alito on the bench. Not to mention the one huge downside for him was that he was an outsider and had to rely on others to help him.
There has ever only been one way out of our situation. But, it sucks and it seems to few see the cold, hard necessity.
There’s an easier way, and if it’s to be a war they’ll have to start it. Just observe that Marbury v. Madison is not supported by legislation, and so we can no longer follow the courts’ conceit [which is precisely what it is] to be able to say what the law is, in Marbury v. Madison.
If it were supposed to be that way, the Constitution would say it. It is nowhere to be found, and I don’t really know why other than habit people follow it. Fear of the unknown? Maybe we should try something different, things are just getting worse this way, and a precedent is set that no longer can an activist president of the right have his full powers of office.
He may have to assert them at the risk of impoliteness to the courts.
The constitution does say it. “The judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts”. The meaning of the judicial power is no more in dispute than are the meanings of the executive power and the legislative power. The judicial power is to say what the law is. Including the constitution, since that is law. Neither of the other branches have that power.
Odd to state that the Legislature who craft the statute and define its terms on behalf of ‘the People’ as their representatives doesn’t have the power to ‘say what the law is’. Lets go with it though. The Judiciary would also have the accompanying burden of containing its own excesses to craft decisions that the other Co equal Branches and ‘the People’ are willing to accept and abide by willingly b/c there’s Judiciary has zero independent means of enforcement.
Assuming this judicial supremacy argument is correct, I don’t think it is, but if the Judiciary is ‘to say what the law is, including the Constitution’ then doesn’t everyone have to wait for the Judiciary to rule before they act in accordance with it? After all the Judiciary has yet to weigh in and ‘say what the law is’. Under that framework we can’t enforce or follow a ‘law’ that hasn’t been subjected to judicial review b/c we don’t know if it is valid; if it ‘is’. How would any review take place if not implemented? The Judiciary doesn’t make advisory opinions and there wouldn’t be a case or controversy to rule upon if not implemented.
Then there’s the problem of the Nuremburg trials scenario of ‘following orders/law’. If the Judiciary is to inform us what the law is and the Constitution is then should someone be held accountable for ‘following the law/orders’? Under this judicial supremacy argument unless the Judiciary had already ruled on the law then how would we know if it is/is not ‘good law’? That creates an ex post facto situation and/or removes any burden of individual responsibility to exercise independent reasoning about whether a particular statute/order is legal/Constitutional.
Maybe the Judiciary isn’t the only entity with the responsibility and power to determine whether a particular law and/or interpretation of that law and/or orders based upon them are/are not legal/Constitutional aka ‘good law’
This is how it has always worked, for the entire history of our form of government, which goes back long before the USA was founded. Once the legislature has made a law it has no further role. People are supposed to make a good faith attempt to understand it and abide by it as written, and the executive is supposed to make a good faith attempt to enforce it as written. So long as no dispute arises about what it means, the judiciary has no role. But as soon as there is a disagreement about that, then it is only the judicial branch that can resolve it.
The main limitation on the judicial branch is that it must sit passively and not rule unless a plaintiff with standing brings a case before it. It may not seek out cases, or rule sua sponte.
Again, this is not even slightly controversial. Everyone in the 1780s agreed what the judicial power is.
Milhouse,
Your response is far more accurate and much less of an all encompassing claim than your prior post:
‘The judicial power is to say what the law is including the Constitution’.
I agree about Judicial Review limited to the plaintiffs/facts in front of them for District Judges limited in scope to their own District, their Circuit for Appellate Judges and the Nation for SCOTUS.
I absolutely reject notions of Judicial Supremacy b/c unlike the Congress they don’t control the purse and unlike the Executive they don’t control a force to impose it. The People are the sovereign in the USA, certainly not 9 lawyers in robes and the ‘rule of law’ isn’t synonymous with ‘rule of/by the lawyers’.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
How can the Judiciary rule on what the Constitution means when the Constitution CLEARLY outlines the powers vested in the President.
You can’t find something unconstitutional if the Constitution states it.
The Constitution does not say “President you only have the power that the Congress and the Judiciary says you have.”
Otherwise the President had no power at the signing of the Constitution until Congress passed its first law granting power to the President and the Judiciary affirming that power.
There are inherent powers that the President has that the Congress nor the Judiciary can restrict.
The power of “judicial review” is, at best, an IMPLIED POWER, as no such power for the judicial branch is specified in the Constitution.
This is ex post facto reasoning based on what “judicial power” has come to mean after Marbury vs. Madison. Before that decision, it did not include the power to declare laws null and void.
I have had a few problems with the Marbury vs. Madison decision as a whole:
It declared that Congress giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction of Writs of Mandamus over Executive Appointments of this nature was unconstitutional when the Constitution explicitly includes “public officers” in the language granting Congress the authority to make such decisions.
It insists that it can’t hold the Constitution supreme over a statute without striking down the law itself. This is entirely unnecessary when deciding for a remedy over the parties involved on the basis of the supremacy of the Constitution. Congress could then decide what to do about the law. The decision even cites a cause where Congress chose to repeal the law after just such a decision!
It declares an appointment to an office to be the property of the appointee once approval has been given and the final signature and seal have been applied. Nothing in the Constitution declares public offices to be the property of their holders. This is in fact a quasi-aristocratic assertion and clearly contradicts the plain intent of the Constitution to establish a government belonging to The People.
It implied that an administration had the power to bind a successor administration through the power of appointment using a distinction between removable and non-removable officers that plainly ignore the separation of the Executive power in the Constitution.
Nothing in the Constitution grants the Judiciary a veto over law. Had such a thing been intended, judges would not have been given lifetime appointments. The Anti-Federalists wanted the Senate to be able to overrule a Supreme Court decision. They did not prevail precisely because it was presumed that the court would be too weak for this to be necessary. The question of a judicial veto had already been debated in the Constitutional Convention and was rejected. The framers explicitly did not want it to have such a power.
We are arguing semantics and debate rules with people who are intentionally destroying our country. We keep telling them the rules to chess while they keep stabbing us in the face.
Calmly explaining the rules ian’t going to fix the problem.
☝️
The Marquess of Queensberry rules do not apply in a knife fight.
Do you people eve stop projecting lol, the cry when you lose an election mob can barely form sentences let alone play chess
I don’t think you need worry about Marbury v Madison. Apparently the S.Ct has effectively abandoned that case and now now thinks it can act without jurisdiction. Welcome to the judicial coup party. .
Must I post this again?
Marshall neither developed the idea of the Constitution as law nor the idea that the courts had the authority to review and strike legislation.
The Constitution, at Article VI defines itself as the supreme law of the land.
Marshall did not “invent” the idea that courts had the authority to examine and over-rule legislation. In the same article, the Constitution says that all judges are bound by it. The authors of the Constitution knew exactly what that language would authorize and anticipated that the courts would settle controversies over government acts and legislation. Such authority was mentioned in both the Federalist Papers and in debate at the federal convention (as recorded in Madison’s Notes of the Debate in the Federal Convention). At the convention it was remarked by three different convention attendees, and no opposition was raised to their presumption that judicial review was within the scope of the courts’ authority.
Federalist Papers
#44
Madison noted that the “success” of acts of Congress would “depend on the executive and the judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts.”
Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
July 21
Mr. L. Martin:
“And as to the Constitutionality of laws, that point will come before the Judges in their proper official character. In this character, they will have a negative on the laws.” (Can’t get plainer than that.)
Mr. Rutledge:
“The Judges ought never to give their opinion on a law till it comes before them.”
July 23
Mr. Madison:
“A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” (Here Madison himself acknowledges the authority of judges to strike unconstitutional legislation.)
Everyone in the US is bound by the constitution, each in diverse ways. To say that courts are bound by the constitution does not distinguish them from the common man or anyone else in this regard.
Two quotes from the constitutional convention, by Martin and Madison (Rutledge is not on point), are not enough to ensure judicial review, when it could have been written plainly and was not.
Post this as many times as you want. I want to hear the other side. I want to understand the basis of this insanity, and maybe you can convince me it’s not insanity, but you have a long way to go to do that.
Seems the SC is in a quandry over shucking their robes and donning janitorial gear to try and mop up the mess left behind.
I’ve never seen a populace so unhappy with the judicial branch.
The only authority on this earth higher than the Supreme Court is The People. Heaven forbid it should come to that.
Justice Roberts, are those DC cocktail parties THAT important? For shame…
Roberts is fast becoming Taney, and the results may be ominous if he does not exercise leadership as Chief Justice and cease being a coward.
AARP? How do they have standing?
AARP is the individual’s in the case like John Doe, not the org.
Actually Trump a dim . Can just tell the justices to take a flying f. If congress does not impeach, to bad.
Need congress starts impeaching judges. That will exposed there crap and it will all be over. Impeachment will not work to remove, but will expose.
Third, congress cuts funding to courts.
That probably only works at the appellate and district level. SCOTUS is called out in Article 3, and it probably must be funded. But lower courts, pfft.
I like your idea of impeachment inquiries on these querulous judges. Lawfare, legislative-fare, learn from the left. And do it better if possible. No brownie points now for holding back.
but Congress can limit its scope
OK now that Justice Alito has clarified what the “putative class” is, those aliens held in Northern District of Texas (which may include the Louisiana detention center ICE is using) the way is clear.
Use a different holding facility.
SCOTUS has jumped the shark. Show them the respect they deserve: as little as possible now, given their behavior.
By the way where’s Gorsuch? I nave little confidence in Kavanaugh or Barrett, but Gorsuch was a pillar of principle and intellectual power on the court, at least until now.
He couldn’t restrain himself in this moment from following the crowd?
Remember all of this when NeverTrump dipwads like that JR come in here trying to talk shit about how Trump is violating constitutional norms.
Democrats continue to push everything to the brink and then blame everyone else for their extremism.
Hmmmm John Roberts….. JR….. could it be…. nahhhhhh
Justice Roberts seems to be oblivious to the implications of this action on the urgent need for clarity given the various district courts clearly over stepping their authority and infringing on executive policy prerogatives. This move, although the issues will eventually be sorted out, is not helpful in that it is increasing current disorder. Roberts & court need to very quickly deal with the disorder that the SC and lower courts have generated.
Obviously not going to happen, as SCOTUS itself has contributed to the chaos. Cloward-Pivins strategy in action.
Based on some of Justice Roberts’ decisions, it appears the Ds have something on him.
What? I don’t know but maybe someone or someones in his family????
As for Just Barrett, I am thoroughly disgusted. This is NOT a chick agreement job – it is the survival of our Republic (the USA is not a democracy). The disappointment and disgust my educated, conservative, faith driven female friends is off the charts.
Amy, you were selected because you said (or implied???) you would follow our Constitution. You are failing – for all your outstanding grades, rankings, etc. you are failing now, when it really counts!
Sadly we are at a point in history where the guiding principle being applied is an opposite emotional reaction to what ever it is Trump is doing.
Trump says MS13 is bad, the emotional opposite reaction from people is to support MS13.
Trump says illigal immigration is bad, the emotional response is to support illigal immigration.
Trump says only women can be women, the emotional response is to groom more children in to the LGBT cult.
Trump says pedophilia is bad, the emotional response of the left is to groom more children for their sex trade.
It’s relentless and if the left doesn’t change, change will be forced upon them and they will not like it one bit.
Either the government intended to remove them imminently or it did not. If it didn’t, then it should have no problem with an order that it not do so. And if it did, then this point fails.
Got it. Preemptive rulings where the lower court had no jurisdiction for a contrived class for a habeas proceeding that doesn’t apply to groups.
“But if you didn’t commit a crime, you shouldn’t have a problem with us trampling your 4th, 5th, and other rights.”
Marxist.
What rights? This is an injunction to preserve jurisdiction over a habeas petition. The plaintiffs alleged that they were in imminent danger of being shipped out of the USA at any moment. Clearly that can’t be allowed, because as we’ve just seen, once someone is in El Salvador they can’t be brought back. To which it is argued that the government denies any intention of shipping them out that quickly; OK, if that’s so then why does it object to the injunction? How can you object to an injunction against doing something you say you don’t want to do? And if you’re lying, or liable to change your mind without notice, then you’ve just demolished the argument against the petition.
This injunction covers a longer period than that implied by an “imminent danger”. it is objectionable due to the points listed clearly in the article and in the rebuttal.
I don’t want to buy a house in Chicago imminently or do a myriad of other actions in the near future, but I would object to an impromptu injunction restricting my ability to do so.
Why does that mean we can’t do it that way? Are you of the opinion that Maryland Man should be brought back? I’m not.
His argument for protection was that he WAS an MS-13 member and therefore had to fear rival gangs in ES. In response, the ES government has kindly placed him in a secure facility where he will have protection from rival gang members. Problem solved.
Also, why should the court be able to preserve jurisdiction, isn’t that just a power grab? Life goes on. When things are in the court’s jurisdiction, so they are, and when they leave, they’ve left. The court should roll with the punches and be more modest.
The government shouldn’t have to ask the court’s blessing to take something out of its jurisdiction. It has no inherent right to jurisdiction.
Your logic is impeccable, but your analysis is flawed. The point isn’t that SCOTUS isn’t preventing ICE from doing that which ICE says it wasn’t about to do, it’s about the appropriateness of SCOTUS merely issuing the order given the circumstances and rule bending/breaking attendant to this case. Logically, the order doesn’t do much because, as you say, government action wasn’t imminent. But SCOTUS intended to affect the government’s plans for action nevertheless. Considering the situation in its totality, including the irregularities cited by Justice Alito, should it have done so, or should it have rebuffed the petitioners (or delayed the process to allow for at least some rectification of the legal situation, such as allowing the government time to respond)? It seems the court, in its haste, made serious errors of judgment in its handling of this situation, no matter how correct its order may (or may not) be.
Given the facts around the unconstitutional deportations to say that Government action was not imminent is just false. Alito misrepresented the factual statements from the Gov lawyers who very clearly DID NOT assure the court that deportations would not take place over the Easter weekend.
The legal situation is very straightforward, the Executive has deported in contravention to Due Process, and in contravention of court orders, with a position that is so legally poor that Conservative judges and Liberal judges alike have mocked the lawyers presenting the cases. The fact is that the Executive’s case is illegal through and through
The Supreme Court is following their leaders
The ball is actually in Congress’s court. The Speaker has arrived at an inflection point. He can allow impeachments of individual Judges to go forward. They will not be convicted, but will be forced to answer questions in front of a national audience to justify their position.
The other option is to defund every inferior court and leave all trials and appeals to the Supreme Court. It’s the only court authorized by the Constitution. Then expand the Supreme Court to 27 judges to handle the work load. Appoint the most conservative constitutionalist judges from the pool of defunded inferior courts. Justice Roberts has brought this upon the federal judiciary.
And strip their 3 month vacation and force them to ride the circuit like they used to do.
As I’ve brilliantly and famously stated before,I am quite sure Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret personally detest the sorry excuse for a President we have now.
Unlike Professor Jacobsen, they see Trump for the morally banrupt buffoon he is.
So, in your Marxist little world, the justices can shred the Constitution because they don’t like the president.
How do you breathe?
At this point, I would support a dictatorial Trump who decided to cancel the courts, close the Congress, and set himself as King.
But you would only like that if Barraco Bama did it.
Be careful what you wish for
you got it ass backwards. It’s Orange HArvey who is CLEARLY shredding the Constitution and it’s the judiciary who is trying to stop that. As is their job.
No, you have it ass backwards, you sorry shit stain. We didn’t elect any of these judges, we elected Trump because he said what he wanted to do when he ran. People like your disgusting behind us shredding the constitution because you never cared for the document.
Shredding the Constitution? How, exactly? I don’t believe you’ve named a single one of Orange Harvey’s acts and identified which constitutional principle it violates.
Presuming in this context you believe he’s not giving illegal aliens “due process”:
Those illegally in the country get all the “process” they are “due,” from an immigration court (an Article II court, an administrative court in the executive branch).
Due judicial process (from an Article III court) is required when the government threatens someone’s rights to life, liberty, and property (this is stated explicitly in the Firth Amendment). A person illegally in the country has no liberty interest in remaining in the country, so no judicial process is required.
Because deportation isn’t considered a punishment, Article III courts have no role in the process.
The petitioners, illegal aliens all, don’t have the “clean hands” necessary to bring an action to prevent their deportation. The courts shouldn’t be entertaining their pleadings. (Note that not one of them is arguing that they’re not in the country illegally.)
Now tell us how Orange Harvey is violating their rights and shredding the Constitution.
Good grief a determination wasn’t even given that they were illegal precisely because they were given no due process. You have no idea whether they were illegal, and in fact the administration has already admitted in the case that Garcia’s removal was a mistake. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried
SCOTUS is expected to honor federal elections. What in the world would their personal feelings have to do with anything??? Grow up.
Do you understand how the system is designed to work? Gorsuch et al are fully entitled to vote their opinions for president every 4 years. Between such moments, their political opinions don’t matter. They’re not allowed to let it influence their work at their jobs at SCOTUS.
Where they are on thin ice with their presumption of being able to step into every issue and tell everyone how to do it. Very thin ice. Marbury v. Madison was never legislated, let alone ratified into the constitution. It was just a power grab by the court and everyone’s let it go this far. But still no legislation = no legitimacy.
A similar thing happened in Israel. They didn’t have a constitutionally powerful judiciary, then an asshole named Aharon Barak got strong judiciary implemented, and ran away to Yale Law School where he still sits, and Netanyahu can’t sneeze without permission from the legal system there, as he’s trying to run a war for Israel’s liberation that that leftist judiciary wants him to lose.
It’s way past time for Congress to act and curb this kind of judicial overreach, at all levels, and reign in lawfare. Lawyers (sorry guys, I am not a lawyer but just someone with common sense) and judges exercise far too much arbitrary power.
I agree. But don’t wait for Congress. Trump should proceed with deportations of clearly illegal invaders, and tell the courts they can call back later when they decide to stay in their lane.
Better yet, pick up all the illegal aliens, drop them off at the courts and have the courts deal with them until they’re all resolved. The courts, especially SCOTUS, will get tired of it real quick.
Congress never enabled it. They don’t have to disable it. It’s past time for everyone to start ignoring the court system’s power grabs outside their jurisdiction.
An American citizen can wait years for relief when their actual rights are violated but an illegal alien, who has no right to be here gets an immediate injunction from the high court?
What part of the constitution is he “clearly shredding”? I don’t see any “shredding”, just some mistakes made through acting in haste, that need correcting. The policies are mostly correct; the implementation is flawed, but can be fixed.
Oops, that was meant to be a reply to the tjv character.
Sanddog, American citizens get immediate injunctions too, when there’s an emergency that can’t wait.
I think Sanddog is referring to how long it takes for cases to work their way through the courts in a normal fashion. Not referring specifically to SCOTUS.
Sanddog is correct. Considering this appeal’s deficiencies and its bending and breaking of rules, attorneys for any class of citizens would have been rebuffed by the SCOTUS. More carefully prepared appeals, following established protocols, have been rebuffed by the SCOTUS on a variety of grounds. Why act in this manner in this situation? If every member of this “class” were to be deported today, not one of them would have had any offense done to any of their rights. Those illegally in the country have no liberty interest in remaining here and therefore they are due no (judicial) “process” from an Article III court. (The Fifth Amendment says that “due process of law” is required when a person’s “life, liberty, or property” is threatened. The deportation of someone illegally in the country doesn’t impugn any of these rights and deportation isn’t considered “punishment.” So “due process” rights do not apply.)
The plaintiffs may have gotten too clever in asking for an injuction to cover a ‘class’. Now the govt can use the same.framework to get this solved for the entire ‘class’ in one shot v death by 25 million individual cases.
The “putative class” has been defined only by Alito, who names the current inmates at a particular facility in Texas.
It seems to me that ICE can start using a different facility for their new inmates and make sure no new people join that “putative class”, and deport as necessary. I don’t see how this stops deportations from any other facility.
The courts have ZERO say in the defense of the country. Ignore this order, and tell them any continuing attempts at interference with the Constitutionally granted powers of the chief executive and commander-in-chief will be met with arrest and detention until treason charges can be filed.
As they say, all animals are equal. The ones who aren’t supposed to be here at all or even more equal than the others. This is just more of the scotus acting like a bunch of traitors. Should have let the mobs have them after they overturned Roe versus wade.
The courts have had some excellent decisions and no they haven’t been emotional at all. That appears to be pure projection especially given the poor legal analysis in this article.
‘It is not clear that the Court had jurisdiction’
False, its very clear the court had jurisdiction, this is just an empty assertion.
‘It is questionable whether the applicants complied with the general obligation to seek emergency injunctive relief in the District Court…
The papers before us, while alleging that the applicants were in imminent danger of removal, provided little concrete support for that allegation’
Very silly, courts have literally held the Gov in contempt on precisely this issue. There is a lot of irreparable harm to US citizens here, and the potential for more from an administration willing to dispense with the constitution when it wants. Its also the case that the Trump administration has done this very thing.
‘Although this Court did not hear directly from the Government regarding any planned deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in this matter, an attorney representing the Government in a different matter, J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 1:25–cv–766 (DC), informed the District Court in that case during a hearing yesterday evening that no such deportations were then planned to occur either yesterday, April 18, or today, April 19.’
False, no such assurances were given to the court with respect to the weekend.
The legal commentary is just a rehash of Alito’s poorly considered nonsense
“There is a lot of irreparable harm to US citizens here” like what? Like losing gang members and foreign criminals from our communities?
much sound and fury–by all accounts, none of these “immigrants” are disputing that they entered/remain in this country illegally–they did not comply with existing laws / processes long-established for legal entry into the us
our right (the people’s right) to have them removed is fundamental–they are trespassing in our home–if the proper authorities will not remove them in a timely fashion or by some legal legerdemain prevent their removal then our options are quickly reduced to the most basic ones
Great take on
the orange blob’s grasp of the law?
{GUFFAW…TITTER…LOW MORDANT CHUCKLE}
https://reason.com/2025/04/25/trumps-understanding-of-due-process-is-just-as-farcical-as-his-definition-of-alien-enemies/
Adding to the confusion, Trump refers to “members” of Tren de Aragua as “alien enemies.” But the AEA defines that term as “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government.” It makes no sense to say that members of Tren de Aragua are “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects” of the gang. And as the ACLU notes, Trump is not claiming to be at war with Venezuela.