Late-night ruling by the Supreme Court on the Alien Enemies Act: Insights provided
In a surprising turn of events, barely two weeks after the Supreme Court green-lit President Donald Trump's use of an outdated 18th-century wartime authority to hasten deportations, the controversial issue has re-emerged at the top court. This development promises momentous consequences for immigration law and policy.
The situation was, to say the least, predictable.
Following a murky 5-4 ruling earlier this month that left both parties claiming victory, the nation's highest court has been petitioned for a second time to prohibit the administration from employing the Alien Enemies Act. This review will unfold as lower courts start to deliberate over the adequate notice the government must provide to those deemed targets under the act and the feasible measures the migrants might take to challenge their deportation.
In a rare, late-night order on a Saturday, the Supreme Court imposed a temporary hold on deporting a group of immigrants in Texas. A majority of justices endorsed this decision, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito voiced their dissent. The court's concise order did not disclose its reasoning, requesting the Trump administration to provide a response "as soon as possible." In the interim, the court instructed the government not to expel any member of the alleged group from the United States until further notice.
The Supreme Court's subsequent actions regarding the migrants at the crux of multiple fast-paced court cases focusing on the Alien Enemies Act, playing out in courtrooms in New York, Colorado, and Texas, remain uncertain.
In response, the White House, on the Saturday following the decision, preferred to focus on the legal suits, rather than the Supreme Court itself. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, "President Trump pledged to the American people to employ all lawful means to remove the threat posed by terrorist illegal aliens. We are confident in the lawfulness of the administration's actions."
The White House alleges that those deported under the act belong to the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, however, evidence supporting this claim has been scarce. Government lawyers have often cited tattoos on immigrants or attire linked to gangs in court records to denote alleged criminality.
An ambiguous ruling
The Supreme Court delivered an ambiguous, unsigned ruling on April 7 in yet another emergency appeal pertaining to the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law Trump invoked to circumvent the usual process for removing specific individuals from the country.
Although the court technically granted the administration continued use of the contentious legislation - a boon for Trump - it likewise blocked a key legal route civil rights groups were attempting to leverage to challenge Trump's activation of the law, effectively stymieing its full annulment.
Concurrently, the court stated that migrants subjected to deportation under the act were entitled to notice and the opportunity to challenge their removal through federal habeas corpus petitions - a win for migrants, to some extent. However, the court did not specify the extent of the notice required, nor did it clarify how habeas petitions, typically filed by prisoners seeking release from detention rather than halting deportations, might function in this context. Furthermore, it remained unclear how over 200 Venezuelans who were expeditiously deported to El Salvador fit into this picture.
Given the Supreme Court's penchant for abstaining from delving into specifics on its emergency docket, and considering the uncertain factual record, its April 7 decision may have been a cautious move with good reason. Nevertheless, it granted Trump substantial interpretive flexibility in applying the Alien Enemies Act. The White House seized this leeway, claiming a total victory and resuming reliance on the act.
Subsequent to the Supreme Court's example, the American Civil Liberties Union brought a series of habeas lawsuits, aiming to safeguard identified clients as well as potentially affected Venezuelan individuals who could potentially be targeted under the Alien Enemies Act. Several lower courts, including those in New York and Texas, granted temporary orders preventing the administration from deporting people under the act while they mulled over the cases. These orders protected only migrants within the geographic jurisdiction of the federal courts concerned.
A questionable course
This week, immigrant rights groups reported that a number of Venezuelan detainees in northern Texas, not covered by any earlier orders, had started receiving notice from the government that they were deemed subject to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act.
The ACLU contends that these notices - now obligatory per the Supreme Court - were written in English and were incomprehensible to at least some of the Spanish-speaking detainees. These notices allegedly did not specify how the recipients could challenge their removal. The group maintains that these detainees faced "imminent" removal, despite the Supreme Court's directive that they be afforded sufficient time to seek an independent evaluation of their situation.
Two immigrants submitted a habeas petition in a federal district court in Abilene, Texas, on Wednesday, petitioning for a temporary order blocking their deportation and the expulsion of "similarly situated" individuals held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas.
US District Judge James Hendrix, a Trump appointee, denied the request for the two migrants, arguing that the government had "unequivocally" stated that it did not intend to deport them, so they were not at immediate risk of deportation. Hendrix reserved judgment on whether the ACLU might shield a broader class of unknown migrants, however, he indicated that he would order written submissions on this question "in due course."
Whether immigrant rights groups can establish a "class" of migrants affected by the case is a technical but essential concern: Without a class, each migrant receiving notice of potential removal would be compelled to file their own habeas petition and wage their fight individually. Habeas petitions are notoriously difficult to win in federal court, and it will be a challenge for most immigrants to secure legal representation.
Unsatisfied with the outcome - and arguably wary of trusting the Trump administration to honor its commitments - the ACLU appealed to the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of appellate court judges in the conservative court denied the request. The migrants then petitioned the Supreme Court on Friday, lodging their emergency appeal with Justice Samuel Alito, who handles expedited appeals from the 5th Circuit.
Uncommonly, the Supreme Court did not technically grant the ACLU's request in its overnight order, but it provided the groups what they desired: a temporary halt on deportations at stake until it had more time to evaluate the appeal. This decision does not necessarily imply that the migrants will prevail in their case, only that they cannot be deported temporarily.
- The Supreme Court's April 7 ruling on the Alien Enemies Act was ambiguous, providing substantial interpretive flexibility for the Trump administration to apply the contentious legislation.
- The Supreme Court's ruling granted migrants subjected to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act the right to notice and the opportunity to challenge their removal through federal habeas corpus petitions, a win for migrants to some extent.
- In a turn of events, a number of Venezuelan detainees in northern Texas, not covered by any earlier orders, started receiving deportation notices from the government in English, which were incomprehensible to at least some of the Spanish-speaking detainees.
- The Supreme Court, in an overnight order, provided immigrant rights groups a temporary halt on deportations at stake until it had more time to evaluate the appeal, effectively pausing the deportation of migrants.
- The ACLU's appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking to protect a class of potentially affected Venezuelan individuals, is ongoing and could have significant implications for the future of the Alien Enemies Act and the general-news-related issue of immigration policy and legislation.
