CNN, Washington, D.C.As part of the Republican president’s strict immigration policies, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday permitted Donald Trump to use a 1798 law that has traditionally only been used during times of war to seek the deportations of suspected Venezuelan gang members, subject to some restrictions.
The administration’s request to overturn Washington-based U.S. Judge James Boasberg’s March 15 order, which had temporarily halted the summary deportations under Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act while the case is still pending, was granted by the court in an unsigned 5-4 decision supported by conservative justices.
The majority of the court, albeit supporting the administration, emphasized the need for judicial review and put restrictions on the manner in which deportations might take place.
Following the date of this order, detainees “must be notified that they are subject to removal under the Act.” The majority noted, “The notice must be given in a timely manner and in a way that will enable them to actually seek habeas relief in the appropriate venue prior to such removal.”
The conservative majority on the court is 6-3. The court’s three liberal justices and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented.
“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself,” Trump said to social media.
On March 15, Trump used the Alien Enemies Act, which is most recognized for being used to intern Japanese, Italian, and German immigrants during World War Two, to expedite the deportation of the suspected Tren de Aragua gang members.
In its ruling on Monday, the court stated that detainees must file so-called habeas corpus cases in the federal judicial district in which they are housed in order to contest the validity of their detention under the Alien Enemies Act. According to the court, Texas, not the District of Columbia, was the appropriate location for this case.
According to the verdict, the court was not addressing whether the administration’s use of that authority to carry out the deportations was legal.
The plaintiffs in this case “claim that they are not removable alien enemies and contest the government’s interpretation of the Act.” However, the court determined that we do not reach such arguments.
A group of Venezuelan males detained by U.S. immigration officials filed a lawsuit to stop the deportations on behalf of themselves and others in similar situations, which was handled by the American Civil Liberties Union. Among other reasons, they contended that Trump’s order went beyond his authority because removals are only permitted under the Alien Enemies Act in cases where war has been declared or the US has been invaded.
The legislation gives the president the authority to limit, deport, or imprison those who are primarily loyal to a foreign power and who could endanger national security during a war.
Lead counsel for the inmates and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, Lee Gelernt, presented the court’s ruling as a victory for his cause.
“This ruling means we will need to start the court process over again in a different venue, but the critical point is that the Supreme Court said individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act,” Gelernt stated. “That is a huge victory.”
In an opinion authored by leftist Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the dissenting justices lambasted the majority for moving after only a few days of debate and for reaching “dubious” findings in the case.
There’s “every reason to question the majority’s hurried conclusion that habeas relief supplies the exclusive means to challenge removal under the Alien Enemies Act,” Sotomayor said.
According to Sotomayor, federal courts that are tasked with reviewing these cases in the future will look into how the Alien Enemies Act should be interpreted, including “whether any given individual is in fact a member of Tren de Aragua” and whether there is a “invasion” or “predatory incursion” that justifies its use.
In part of the dissent, Sotomayor noted that requiring detainees to submit individual claims across the nation “risks exposing them to severe and irreparable harm,” which was not Barrett’s opinion but rather that of the two other liberal justices. According to Sotomayor, one concern is that they won’t be able to tell if they will be surreptitiously moved to another location or kept in jail where they are detained.
According to Sotomayor, “that requirement may have life or death consequences,”
Democratic President Barack Obama’s appointment Boasberg temporarily halted the deportations. However, Trump’s administration permitted two aircraft that were already in the air to proceed on to El Salvador, where American officials turned over 238 Venezuelan men to Salvadoran authorities for placement in the “Terrorism Confinement Center” in the Central American nation.
The judge has also carefully examined whether the Trump administration’s failure to return the deportation flights after issuing his ruling constituted a violation of it. The flights were not obliged to return because, according to Justice Department attorneys, they had already departed U.S. airspace by the time Boasberg issued a formal order. They disregarded the significance of Boasberg’s verbal directive to turn around any aircraft transporting deportees that had been made during a hearing two hours prior.
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked Trump on March 18 when he demanded that Congress impeach Boasberg, a move that could remove him from the bench. The U.S. Senate confirmed Boasberg in 2011 with a bipartisan 96-0 vote, but Trump referred to him on social media as a “Radical Left Lunatic” and a “troublemaker and agitator.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday was the most recent in recent days to support Trump. In a 5-4 ruling on Friday, it permitted Trump’s administration to move forward with cutting teacher training grants by millions of dollars as part of his campaign to combat efforts related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Earlier on Monday, the court also temporarily blocked a judge’s order that the administration return a Salvadoran man who the government has admitted was mistakenly deported to El Salvador before the end of the day.