'Literally in the middle of the night': Justice Alito slams SCOTUS for issuing 'unprecedented' relief by stopping Trump deportations carried out under wartime law
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The U.S. Supreme Court’s order blocking the Trump administration from carrying out certain deportations under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) was “hastily and prematurely granted” — nor was it “necessary or appropriate” — said Justice Samuel Alito in a blistering dissent Saturday after the decision was handed down.
“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,” Alito wrote in the fiery, five-page rebuke.
“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,” Alito said, noting how Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented Saturday.
“Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law,” Alito proclaimed. “The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order … and this Court should follow established procedures.”
The Saturday order and deportations case comes in the aftermath of an April 7 Supreme Court ruling , which dissolved a nationwide injunction barring summary deportations under the auspices of the obscure wartime law. All nine justices voted against the government’s use of the AEA without due process.
Last week, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in Texas federal court, challenging the “AEA Process” as a whole. The plaintiffs also filed for a temporary restraining order and class certification.
Understood by the nation’s high court , habeas “has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention” and is a “means of contesting the lawfulness of restraint and securing release.” Under the basic habeas standard, federal courts consider whether any given detention violates federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix — a Donald Trump appointee — denied the motion for a restraining order . The court credited a statement from Department of Justice attorneys that none of the plaintiffs faced “imminent risk of summary removal” under the AEA. Hendrix reserved ruling on the class certification motion. The ACLU quickly filed an interlocutory appeal on Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, stylized as an emergency request for a temporary restraining order.
That appeal was still pending when the plaintiffs filed their emergency application for an emergency injunction with the Supreme Court, as pointed out by Alito on Saturday.
“Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief,” he said in his dissent.
“The Court ordered ‘[t]he Government’ not to remove a ‘putative class of detainees’ until this Court issues a superseding order,” Alito explained. “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.'”
Alito said that he was unsure whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to make such a ruling in the AEA deportations case, noting how “the All Writs Act does not provide an independent grant of jurisdiction,” per his dissent filing.
“When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief, and we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming,” Alito said. “This Court, however, refused to wait. But under this Court’s Rule 23.3, ‘[e]xcept in the most extraordinary circumstances, an application for a stay will not be entertained unless the relief requested was first sought in the appropriate court or courts below or from a judge or judges thereof.'”
According to Alito, the only papers submitted to the Supreme Court were those filed by the applicants. The court did not order or receive a response from the government regarding the “factual allegations or any of the legal issues presented by the application,” the justice said. “And the Court did not have the benefit of a Government response filed in any of the lower courts either,” he added.
When the applicants first raised their allegations in district court, Hendrix provided the government with 24 hours to respond and was “poised to rule expeditiously,” per Alito. The lower court dissolved the government’s “obligation to respond” after counsel for applicants “filed their hasty appeal” with the Supreme Court, which in the district court’s view, “deprived it of jurisdiction to rule,” Alito said.
Another point of contention for the George W. Bush appointee was that while the Trump administration was unable to respond to the allegations being made about deportations being imminent, Alito said a DOJ lawyer in a different case told the U.S. District Court judge who is overseeing it on Friday that “no such deportations” were being carried out by the government or “planned” to occur.
“The papers before us, while alleging that the applicants were in imminent danger of removal, provided little concrete support for that allegation,” Alito concluded. “Members of this Court have repeatedly insisted that an All Writs Act injunction pending appeal may only be granted when, among other things, ‘the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear and, even then, sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.'”
Tags
Who is online
50 visitors
Does the SCOTUS fear the ACLU or is it the media?
I think it fears being seen as just another Trump boot licker like the rest of the Republican party has become. If it is clearly seen as being overly partisan, they will lose any sense of being fair or just and thus lose whatever legitimacy they have left.
What just happened that Alito is bitching about is that the court acted quickly because it had to in order to protect due process in this country. Another batch of undocumented immigrants set to be shipped off to a foreign prison (not that conservatives give a shit about the lives or conditions of those they consider inferior) that are being refused the right to challenge this in court or to prove they do not belong on that plane. If the court didn't act fast in at least blocking their rendition then the court would not have been able to weigh in at all thus denying them due process. I guess the old "It is better for 10 guilty men to go free than to wrongfully execute an innocent man" doesn't hold any weight in the MAGAverse. For them it's "Throw the brown babies out with the bathwater!". All this court ruling does is stop the throwing out the bathwater so they can confirm it contains no babies, but as we can see such reason infuriates the rabid conservatives.
"Joe Biden is sharp as a tack"
"Joe Biden does laps around staff"
"Joe Biden is a workaholic"
You mean boot lickers like that?
Jimi Hendrix? I thought he was dead. He sure played a mean guiitar, especially The Star Spangled Banner.
I can guarantee that James Wesley Hendrix is no relation.
What makes you so sure about that?
Just a hunch
The fact that the ruling was made with only one party's statements, could be justification for this administration to pull a "Biden" and ignore the ruling all together.
Funny how there was no media outrage when Biden ignored the court.
The hypocrisy is glaring.
Maybe because he didn't.
That's only one instance.............
All you have done is provide a link and a quote. You haven’t explained why or how you think the Biden administration ignored the Court. My understanding of that case is that the Court thought the rules should be clearer. Ok, well, rewriting rules takes time, and I believe those new rules were finally released a few weeks ago.
Take his own word for it:
American Presidents may not like Supreme Court decisions, but most since Andrew Jackson haven’t bragged about defying its rulings. Not even Donald Trump . Then there’s President Biden, who, while canceling more student debt this week, boasted about ignoring the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling that his previous loan forgiveness plan was illegal.
Speaking in Culver City, Calif., on Wednesday, Mr. Biden said his original plan to “provide millions of working families with debt relief for their college student debt” was derailed by “MAGA Republicans” and “special interests” who challenged the plan in court. “The Supreme Court blocked it,” Mr. Biden added, “but that didn’t stop me.” He apparently thinks defying the law is a virtue.
On Wednesday Mr. Biden wrote off another $1.2 billion in student-loan debt, bringing the total amount he has canceled to some $138 billion. That’s not as much as the $400 billion debt cancellation a 6-3 Supreme Court majority struck down last summer, but it’s still a handout to 3.9 million borrowers.
He’s not really cancelling anything because he’s transferring the debt from the borrowers it benefited to the taxpayers who will finance it with higher taxes or interest payments on the rising national debt.
Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’ - WSJ
He did it and he spit in their faces.
When you do a thing differently to achieve the same goal, that’s not ignoring the Court. That’s following the court. Every executive, and every legislature, has to find a legal way to achieve its agenda.
This has been explained many times now. Confirmation bias.
When people use flimsy excuses for something obvious it destroys credibility.
Confirmation bias is looking for any argument that sounds good. Biden defied the courts and Trump can do the same.
That you apparently didn't read. If you had you would have seen, right at the start of the article:
No, Vic, confirmation bias is accepting only 'facts' that support one's preconceived notions and rejecting those that conflict.
Biden did NOT defy the SCotUS. He abided by their ruling that he could not use the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003 and found an alternate, legal pathway to achieve part of his objective with Section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965.
Your refusal to accept this clear fact is an example of confirmation bias.
And, as I always write when I explain this to you, et. al., I was (and am) politically against this move by Biden. I disagree completely with using federal funds to forgive student loans. I am, however, in favor of helping ambitious, talented young people secure higher education and contribute to this nation. Apply the funds to the future, not the past.
To wit, my disagreement with you is clearly NOT based on any political factors because we are both against Biden's policy. You, however, refuse to accept hard-cold facts about this situation so that you can falsely continue to pretend that Biden bucked the SCotUS so as to somehow defend Trump.
You apparently didn’t read my reply, because I referenced the case, and the government response. Something I could not have not have known about if I hadn’t read the link. Furthermore, I did extra research so I could opine on the end result.
All you have done is repeat part of the original article, without any indication that you understand what it might mean to “faithfully follow the court’s ruling.” If you go to the EPA’s website and look for - and find - the new WOTUS rules, as I did, you would understand that the executive branch has tried to comply with the Court’s ruling.
In the first 2 sentences, you laid out that you didn't look at the link or read any bit of it. There is no need to read further.
I wrote four sentences and you couldn’t make it to the third one? Look, I read your link and did further research. This is the second time I have said so. If you don’t want to seriously look at the issue, then don’t respond to my comments. Troll someone else if that’s what you’re here to do.
Your response says otherwise.
Not only must the Executive follow the Court's rulings, but the Court must follow it's own procedures if it is going to have any legitimacy. Activist District Court judges deciding to act as the President has created a crisis for the judiciary. It's imperative that the Supreme Court reign in the activism and restore an orderly procedure.
The precedent was set for that when they ruled against the debt forgiveness?
Good thing that isn't happening.
Sure.
You are free to attempt to prove the claims you make.
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.
It is rather interesting to see how some here seem to believe the position of President, at least when their candidate wins the election, should not be checked or balanced by the judicial branch of government. Just because a court doesn't rule in your favor does not automatically mean they are an "activist judge" but that seems to be what conservatives are trying to convince everyone of. Every time a ruling doesn't go their way they immediately start trying to dig into who appointed them, did they ever give $50 to the Democratic party, ANYTHING they can use to try and undermine the ruling accept actually defending their Presidents ridiculous legal positions which often get torn to shreds because they are so thin they're translucent and even Trump sycophants can see right through them, which is why their only option is to attack the judge.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard to just make your argument in plain language. Have a little respect for my time. You just post a link and expect me to go searching it for your point of view, when you could just make your point plainly, right here.
That sounds like your problem. Not mine.
When you earn it, I will.
First, there is no special requirement that the Court must wait for rulings from lower courts. Second, “ex parte” rulings - meaning one side is not present in court - are quite common, especially in cases of Temporary Restraining Order situations where the party seeking relief is in danger of immediate harm. There is no question here of the threatened harm and its immediacy. The Court’s quick action was entirely appropriate, and in keeping with legal precedent and tradition.
Final word
To those who like to tell it like it is, but don't like to hear it like it is:
I have yet to hear from any supposed defender of due process rights, how we get millions of illegals their due process in a timely fashion. It leads to questions of why the previous administration deliberately brought millions into the country in violation of US immigration law. Beyond that I question if many on the left really care about due process or even the Constitution itself. I don't think that many of them like the Constitution of the country or the people who live in it. Thus, I take their arguments with a grain of salt.
I know I have responded to you on this before. So here we go again. Providing due process to millions of illegals would be incredibly time consuming and expensive.
You apparently think that is a reason to just forego due process. Amazing how a defender of the rule of law, the CotUS, due process, etc. no longer is worried about violating same as long as the violator is Trump.
So here you are implying others do not care about the CotUS, etc. in the same post where you suggest we abandon due process.
Is it me? Incredibly time consuming really means that we would never be able to give them all a hearing. Many would outlive their hearing dates. Letting millions of unvetted migrants in guaranteed that. That was when our laws were violated.
The USA does not dispense with due process, period. That is the rule of law. You either care about it or you do not. The validity of the rule of law does not change based on the letter next to the PotUS.
Gee, I'm so glad to hear of your newly found love for the rule of law. You keep saying that is all you care about. I sometimes get confused because we were both on this site for the past 4 years, back when U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents were ordered to process the illegal aliens they encountered into the U.S. in violation of the immigration statute instead of returning them across the border. I must have missed you saying that the USA does not dispense with immigration law.
I also must have been away when then Homeland Security Director Mayorkas violated the immigration benefit statutes passed by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act by granting parole to the migrants. Congress even had to add a line to the Act specifically forbidding an HHS Secretary from ever doing it again. Mayorkas even granted parole to those who already had their hearings and had already been deported but came back.
The Secretary violated just about every immigration law including granting work authorization to those he paroled without congressional authorization. Still, I don't recall anyone tumultuously preaching to us about the rule of law.
I guess sometimes the rule of law is more important than others. I'm trying to be a fair guy, so I'll tell you what I am going to do. I am copying this article. The Supreme Court is busy handing down decisions on all this stuff. The most important case comes in mid-May with a decision on exactly how much authority District Judges actually have. Whenever they render those decisions, I'm going to come right back to you because I want to give you every opportunity to once again stand up for the rule of law.
And now you resort to lying about me personally. Nowhere have I posted comments that objected to the rule of law.
Another absurd lie. I care about a great many things. The rule of law (as opposed to the rule of a man) is one of them.
And now the slimy tactic of putting words in my mouth. There are a great many events in life that I do not comment on. But categorically my position is that we have laws in this land based on a constitution and those laws must be followed. This is an imperfect system but it is far better than a dictatorship or absolute monarchy where individuals make up the rules as they go along. And for this system to work, it must apply to everyone ... even those we believe are bad people.
Bullshit. You have no argument so you just invented your own little fairy tale. It is a disgusting display of dishonesty. If you do not have an argument, it is far better to just not respond than to flat out invent your own 'truth'.
How about you instead just quote me where I have argued against the rule of law. You will fail and will likely just resort to making shit up as you have just demonstrated.
That is very true.
I guess then that is the sum of your 'rebuttal'.
I made my point. You reacted.
Your 'point' was lies about me personally. My comment history consistently supports the rule of law (vs. the rule of man) so you might want to consider NOT repeating those false personal allegations about me in the future.
Not the time or place.
HD might be better.
I agree, so do not lie about my positions.
This would not be the first time I've made these comments - A first step would be to stop firing immigration judges as Trump is doing. - he let more go just this week. Next, ramp up funding and staffing for immigration courts to handle the case loads. Cases should be weeks out, not years out. Start working on and implement a plan for fair and humane housing for immigrants (including families) to wait out their hearings so we stop this catch and release bullshit.
No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it's still a lie.
Ah yes... use the tactic of accusing your enemy of exactly what one is doing themselves. It's a deflection tool that no longer works. We know from many posts and articles here what the right wing populist believe and it isn't about defending the law, defending due process, defending the Constitution or loving one's neighbors.
I'll buy that. How many judges would that take?
That would be a job for Congress to get off their fat lazy asses and figure out.
I'm guessing that we might have to swear in every member of the armed forces and still I doubt we would get the cases heard within your time frame.
You don't have all the pertinent information to make an educated guess.
First, I'm under no illusions that it would be simple to fix. Second, Congress (both parties) created the problem by abdicated its responsibilities on this issue for the last 35 years (or more) and only they can fix it by passing laws and funding.
It will NOT be fixed by EO statements no matter what they are or who gives them.
We all know that answer.
First, I'm under no illusions that it would be simple to fix. Second, Congress (both parties) created the problem by abdicated its responsibilities on this issue for the last 35 years (or more) and only they can fix it by passing laws and funding.
No, it is beyond difficult, it is more likely impossible. As to causation, the problem was created when approximately 12 million illegal migrants were welcomed into the country.
It will NOT be fixed by EO statements no matter what they are or who gives them.
That is not true either. The vast majority of people that Barack Obama deported never faced a judge:
"Under today's removal system, only one quarter of all people facing expulsion get to present their case before an immigration judge. These judges, employed by the Justice Department, are experts in immigration law. They conduct formal court hearings where they hear live witnesses, review documentary evidence, and evaluate applications for immigration relief.
By contrast, nonjudicial removals are fast-track proceedings wholly controlled by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), sometimes involving only a single border agent who acts as both judge and jury. Those facing nonjudicial removal have no lawyer and no chance to appeal.
The Obama administration has prioritized speed over fairness in the removal system, sacrificing individualized due process in the pursuit of record removal numbers.
A deportation system that herds 75 percent of people through fast-track, streamlined removal is a system devoid of fairness and individualized due process. Nonjudicial removals violate our constitutional tradition and cannot be reconciled with an administration that has repeatedly stated its commitment to immigration reform."
Speed Over Fairness: Deportation Under the Obama Administration | ACLU
That's none other than the ACLU complaining about it in 2014 when Obama was president. Today under Trump, the ACLU is shopping for Obama judges to stop it. I say if Obama could do it, so can Trump.
The left will have it's argument destroyed as precedent has been set.
That was Obama. Different POTUS, different standards.
And they don't even realize it.
You got it!
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today." — Thomas Sowell
Very true.
Obama was wrong to deny due process to illegal immigrants residing in the USA. Turning away illegals at the border is one thing, but those who have been living in the USA for years (and especially those gainfully employed and contributing to society with no criminal record) should have due process according to the CotUS. And due process here largely means being given the time and right to make their case to an immigration judge.
You haven't shown you do.
Again, you show you don't understand the problem let alone have a viable legal solution.
And still wrong!
Yes. The ACLU continues to do its job and stand up for the rights of people no matter who's trying to screw them over.
I say it's wrong no matter who does it. I said it was wrong when Obama did it, when Trump did it his first term and when Biden did it. It's still wrong now.
No... once they set foot in the US they have rights by CotUS and the law. Obama, Trump (first term) and Biden all took plane loads and bus loads of people picked up at processing centers before they could be evaluated for asylum and sent them to Mexico.
That is wrong. I said it then and I'll say it now.
Ah, nice to hear it.
Turning away illegals at the border is one thing, but those who have been living in the USA for years (and especially those gainfully employed and contributing to society with no criminal record) should have due process according to the CotUS.
Turning them away at the border is always the preferred way to go.
And due process here largely means being given the time and right to make their case to an immigration judge.
What it really means is they will end up staying here. Tell us how you feel about that.
Actually, I have, exceptionally well, I might add.
Again, you show you don't understand the problem let alone have a viable legal solution.
The problem is that if we abide by our Constitution's generous grant of due process rights to non-citizens, we will be forced to allow the millions that were allowed in over 4 years to stay. It isn't complicated.
I say it's wrong no matter who does it.
You are entitled to your opinion.
We can't follow the law, because it's too hard? WTF!!!
Biden broke the law when he let them all in. The American people by a 75% margin are not going to settle for them staying here because all of a sudden there is due process rights for what is now probably 32 million migrants. Nobody cares.
Several points...
Due process isn't here "all of a sudden". It didn't just arrive one morning like a crop circle. It's part of the fabric of our country. It doesn't go away simply because you're not able to figure out logistics.
75% of the American people are positively not going to approve of abandoning the Constitution.
What nobody cares about is this xenophobic pseudo-panic over people who are already here anyway.