Posted on 04/07/2025 4:05:05 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
So the cork goes back in the champagne.
It's about time they told those stupid little bitch judges to shut up.
UPDATE from Julie Kelly:
A good question!
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2
So can a judge continue a contempt investigation into orders that have been vacated by SCOTUS 🤔
6:20 PM · Apr 7, 2025
You are wrong .
The guy is a illegal Gang banger and some Left wing judge is protecting
from going back and face a rival gang .
That illegal needs to go back and deal with his gang life .
Why are the US taxpayers protecting illegal gang bangers .
This was a “Per curiam” decision. Based on some cursory researching I did, Per curiam decision are made by the whole court without listing the individual justices and their votes, although individual justices can write dissenting or concurring opinions if they choose.
For this decision, Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion while Sotomayor and Jackson each wrote separate dissenting opinions. Beyond that, the rest of the judges and their votes can only be surmised.
Apparently, Per curiam rulings are not the norm. Why and when the court would choose to make a decision Per curiam is unclear to me.
IMPEACH THAT CREEP!
Here is a better article telling exactly what happened. I find that Gateway Pundit is often a verrry poor source.
“The article does not say.”
The article DOES say.
“The Supreme Court however, said the Administration must give reasonable notice for gang members to challenge their deportations in court.”
Why should they?
There’s an administrative hearing that determines they’re unlawfully residing within the borders of the United States and deportation is executed. That is the process that they’re due. Even if they were here legally the visa’s and passports are clear that GANG ACTIVITY can invalidate the document.
Still, take the win.
“I’m not finding the breakdown in the article. 6-3? 5-4? Just curious.”
It is in the article.
why not up yet ot Fox or CNN ?
GP exaggerating again.
Better yet… send a busload of MS13 thugs with machetes to his house and hand each a Ben Franklin with instructions to get busy.
...because Boasberg’s daughter needs a job.
On April 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped into a heated legal showdown over President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, vacating orders from U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg that had blocked the administration from deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members, specifically those tied to the Tren de Aragua gang. This ruling, which came down today, marks a significant win for Trump’s immigration agenda, though it’s not a total green light—there’s a catch.Boasberg, an Obama appointee and chief judge of the D.C. District Court, had issued a temporary restraining order on March 15, 2025, halting Trump’s plan to fast-track deportations under the wartime law. Trump’s proclamation targeted Venezuelans he claimed were part of Tren de Aragua, a gang he labeled a “hybrid criminal state” invading the U.S. Boasberg’s order didn’t just pause the deportations—it demanded planes already in the air, carrying over 200 migrants to El Salvador, turn back. When they didn’t, it sparked a firestorm, with the administration arguing the order came too late and Boasberg overstepping his authority.
The Supreme Court’s decision hinges on venue—it agreed with the Trump administration that the case should’ve been filed in Texas, where the migrants were detained, not D.C.
But the justices didn’t stop there. They emphasized that even under the Alien Enemies Act, the government must give “reasonable notice” to deportees, letting them challenge their designation as gang members in court before being shipped off. This nod to due process keeps a leash on the administration’s power, balancing Trump’s push for swift action against basic legal protections.
Boasberg agreed the deportees deserved a shot to dispute their gang ties, citing “frightening” implications and potential torture risks in El Salvador.
Trump’s team fought back hard—calling for Boasberg’s impeachment, appealing to the D.C. Circuit (which upheld the block 2-1), and finally escalating to the Supreme Court on March 28. The DOJ leaned on executive power over national security, even invoking state secrets to dodge Boasberg’s questions about the flights. The Court’s conservative majority, bolstered by Trump’s three appointees, didn’t fully buy that line but handed him the venue win anyway.
What’s it mean? Trump can resume deportations under the act, but only if he dots the i’s on notice and court access. It’s a practical victory—gang members can still be targeted, just not as summarily as he’d hoped. Critics on X call it a half-measure; supporters cheer it as a border security coup. Either way, it’s a test of how far Trump can stretch a 227-year-old law in 2025’s political furnace. The fight’s not over—expect more legal volleys as the details shake out.
“There was no full court decision.”
5+3+1=9
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.