Posted on 04/08/2025 9:37:33 AM PDT by george76
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a victory to the Trump Administration on the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act of suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. The Court ruled that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s March 15 order temporarily blocking deportation was invalid and that he should never have proceeded in the case. Rather, as some of us previously argued, the Court ruled that this is a habeas case that should be heard in Texas. Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh to support the Administration.
Boasberg’s actions have been closely followed and heralded by many. However, for some of us, this seemed like an odd habeas action where jurisdiction should reside in Texas. The concern was that, as shown in a number of these cases, the challengers forum shopped to get a favorable judge like Boasberg in Washington.
The Court ruled, “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.” That should have been Judge Boasberg’s response when the challengers first came to his courtroom. Instead, he set off a series of irregular hearings, including holding an emergency hearing on a Saturday despite not being the designated judge for such emergency matters that week.
The justices held that custody detainees are entitled to a hearing before deportation. However, the majority also offered key support for the Administration’s argument over presidential authority, writing “[c]hallenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude[s] judicial review,’ Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas.”
The decision not only overturned Boasberg’s order but also declared the District of Columbia an inappropriate venue for the case. That is a considerable victory for the Trump Administration and validates its long-standing position in the case.
Yet, it also reaffirmed that “[r]egardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas.” Those in custody will be accorded a hearing, though the odds are weighted heavily against them in prevailing in such a habeas action. That may be part of the reason the challengers seemed to equivocate on whether this was a habeas or Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case.
The majority takes a slight dig at the liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, noting that “[f]or all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.”
That line may be directed most at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who compared the deportations to the mass confinement of Japanese Americans in World War II and the decision in Korematsu.
“I lament that the Court appears to have embarked on a new era of procedural variability, and that it has done so in such a casual, inequitable, and, in my view, inappropriate manner. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___ , ___ (2025) (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). At least when the Court went off base in the past, it left a record so posterity could see how it went wrong. See, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.”
It is a bit more difficult to discern Justice Barrett’s position, who again joined the liberal justices. However, Barrett only joined in Parts II and III-B of the dissenting opinion. Part II is merely a couple of paragraphs long and deals with the fact that these detainees must receive due process. However, the majority held that such due process must be afforded. The Court is unanimous on that point.
It is Part III-B that is curious. That section states in part:
Also troubling is this Court’s decision to vacate summarily the District Court’s order on the novel ground that an individual’s challenge to his removal under the Alien Enemies Act “fall[s] within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus” and must therefore be filed where the plaintiffs are detained. . . . This conclusion is dubious.
Dubious? What precisely does that mean? If it is not a habeas, what is it? Given the majority’s ruling in favor of due process for the detainees, Barrett’s adoption of a fraction of the dissenting opinion left much unclear as to her view on what standard applies to these detainees.
Both sides can walk away with something in this opinion. For the challengers, it does reaffirm due process. However, as noted earlier, the habeas process will prove very difficult for these detainees under the controlling standards. This is more likely to offer a process but not the result that these challengers are seeking.
“The justices held that custody detainees are entitled to a hearing before deportation.”
I hope we get a Judge Roy Bean presiding over those hearings.
“Deport him! Next!”
it is scary to think that any decision would be as close as 5-4 all the time...
i would want the law to be followed and that 8-1, 9-0 would be the normal...
Get the women off the court and you can make it happen...
I’m having trouble following the logic of this ruling.
Habeus seems to apply to detainment and not deportation (which is civil).
If I understand correctly, you don’t have to have a judge review a deportation decision, but apparently, detainees have the right to a hearing as to whether their detention is proper.
But how can the government deport anyone who is unwilling without first detaining him or her?
Further, once a detainee is released in a foreign jurisdiction, he or she is no longer detained and whether his or her detention was lawful becomes a civil matter. (IOW he or she might be able to sue for unlawful detention, but that’d be hard to do from foreign soil.)
“Due process” doesn’t always require a hearing before a judge, but it does require a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, which can include non-judicial bodies such as an administrative agency.
At a minimum, due process requires notice of the action and an opportunity to be heard.
The key is that the tribunal must be impartial and provide a fair opportunity to be heard.
But habeus requires a judicial hearing.
I’ve been giving Amy Vivian Coney Barrett the benefit of the doubt lately, but if she voted against this, then I guess she is not who I thought she was.
It was men vs women in this decision. All four chicks voted for the TdA terrorists, and that included the alleged conservative Coney Barrett. It makes one wonder if these babes in black robes looked on the terrorists as potential pets, because, you know, chicks dig bad boys.
ACB may need a come to Jesus experience.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, you ignorant flaming asswipe, unlike the individuals being deported in this instance - those Japanese interred during WWII WERE AMERICAN CITIZENS.
John Roberts siding with the Trump Admin? Will wonders never cease.
Go West, young thug, and meet your misfortune.
If a usa spec ops team infiltrated china and got caught, would we expect them to get habeas corpus in a civilian court, or would we expect there to be a military tribunal, if not summarily executed?
The latest try from Trump’s DOJ is 900K per day fines, but compared to a prison in El Salvador or Gitmo? And if DOJ starts punishing US citizens for hiding them, Schumer, Warner and Coons suddenly are all over the media. Maybe DOJ needs a new trick.
As predictable as spring rains. It’s now a crime to harbor TDA members, just like ______ fill in the blank.
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.