The Supreme Court ruled Monday night that the Trump administration could temporarily continue to deport Venezuelan immigrants under the wartime power bill, thus overturning a lower court that temporarily stopped deportation.
The decision marked a victory for the Trump administration, despite the narrow ruling and focused on the appropriate place of the case, rather than the government’s use of centuries-old laws to justify its decision to send Venezuelans parallel to El Salvador, with few proper procedures.
The judge did not address whether the Trump administration improperly classified Venezuelans as deportable by the Foreign Enemy Act, found that immigrants’ deportation by Washington, D.C. were questioned their deportation in Washington, D.C., and determined that immigrants should raise challenges in Texas and hold challenges in Texas.
According to the court's order, the order was brief and unsigned, “The detainees were confined to Texas, so it would be inappropriate to be located in the District of Columbia.”
Agree, Brett M. Kavanaugh (Brett M.
“As the court emphasized, the disagreement between the court and dissidents is not about whether the detainees are subject to judicial review of the transfer – all nine members of the court agreed that judicial review is available,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote. “The only question is where judicial review should be conducted.”
The case is perhaps the most striking of eight emergency applications the Trump administration has filed to date with the Supreme Court, demonstrating a direct collision between the judicial and executive branches.
The government has asked judges to weigh their efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel more than 100 Venezuelans to El Salvador prisons.
The government claims that migrants are members of the violent street gang Tren de Aragua, a Venezuela-based violent street gang, which allows their removal under the bill, which allows the president to authorize the detention or expulsion of citizens of enemy countries. The president can invoke laws when “declare war” or when a foreign government invades the United States.
On March 14, President Trump signed a declaration targeting members of Tren de Aragua, claiming that “invasions” and “predatory invasions” were underway when wartime laws were invoked. In the announcement, Mr. Trump claimed that the gang “takes hostile action” against the United States “on the directions, secrets or otherwise” by the Venezuelan government.
Attorneys representing some of the targets then challenged them in the Washington federal court.
On the same day, planeloads deported were sent to El Salvador, who reached an agreement with the Trump administration to occupy Venezuelans and detain them.
Federal Judge James E. Boasberg directed the government to stop flights. He then issued a written order to temporarily suspend plans for government cases.
The Trump administration appealed Judge Boasberg's interim restraining order, and a secession group on the immigration side of three Washington's appeals judges were suspended. A judge wrote that the government's deportation plan denied Venezuelans “even a spread of due process.”
At that time, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh this, arguing in its application that the case raised “basic questions about who decides how to conduct actions related to sensitive national security in the country.”
The immigration lawyer responded sharply, saying Judge Boasberg's temporary pause was “the only thing” with the government sending immigrants “to the prison in El Salvador, perhaps no more procedural protection, less judicial review, perhaps no more.”
The ACLU and the advancement of democracy, groups representing Venezuelan immigrants said the president chose the regulations in a “going to deprive criminal gangs of criminal gangs” law in a way that “completely contradicts the limited delegation of the Wartime Administration, and the War Law.” ”
Immigrants sent to El Salvador are “confined to one of the world’s most brutal prisons, where torture and other human rights violations are rampant.”
The Trump administration responded in a summary Wednesday that the administration does not deny that Venezuelan immigrants should undergo “judicial scrutiny.”
Acting Chief Sarah M. Harris wrote: “It's obviously what they did.”
Instead, the government believes that “the urgent issue now is the ‘procedural issue’, involving where and how detainees are challenging them as enemy aliens.” Ms. Harris argues that immigrants should have legal challenges in Texas, where they are detained before deportation, not in Washington.
She asked the Justice to cancel Mr. Trump's orders for temporary blocks, saying the suspension was “an unbelievable long time for the court to stop executives from conducting foreign policy and national security actions.”
Ms. Harris claims that immigration lawyers offer a “sensational” narrative.
She added that the government denied that immigrants could face torture in El Salvador, writing that the government’s position was “tolerate torture and not invite cruelty.”
