Posted on 04/08/2025 11:23:10 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Yes x 4900
Yesterday, the Supreme Court also ruled that the rule of law, separation of powers, and general protection of the citizens of the United States is a good idea.
There, fixed that sentence.
A TRO to force The President to keep spending money is crazy.
If he Is forced to keep spending money Then even if he wins he loses because the money is already spent
bkmk
the first words out of my mouth on most of these lawsuits, was ... NO STANDING!
and I was correct!
Yesterday, the Supreme Court also ruled -generally favorable- to the Trump administration [pdf here] on the issue of Venezuelans in the United States labeled by President Donald Trump as “alien enemies.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
Donald Trump v JGG, 604 US --- (2025), 24A931 Per Curiam
Per curiam at 2:
We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges 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. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardlessof 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. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)).
Per curiam at 3:
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “ ‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163-164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
Aliens can be turned away at the border, no problem, but once they are allowed to be here, removal requires due process. Each and every one is entitled to a hearing with a right to be heard.
All nine justices agreed.
Sotomayor dissent at 9-10:
Begin with that upon which all nine Members of this Court agree. The Court’s order today dictates, in no uncertain terms, that “individual[s] subject to detention and removal under the [Alien Enemies Act are] entitled to ‘judicial review’ as to ‘questions of interpretation and constitutionality’ of the Act as well as whether he or she ‘is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.’” Ante, at 2 (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163–164, 172, n. 17 (1948)). Therefore, under today’s order, courts below will probe, among other things, the meaning of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” 50 U. S. C. §21, and ask, for example, whether any given individual is in fact a member of Tren de Aragua. Even the Government has now largely conceded that point. Application 19.So too do we all agree with the per curiam’s command that the Fifth Amendment requires the Government to afford plaintiffs “notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act, . . . within reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” Ante, at 3. That means, of course, that the Government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025. Nor can the Government “immediately resume” removing individuals without notice upon vacatur of the TRO, as it promised the D. C. Circuit it would do. See 2025 WL 914682, *13 (Millett, J., concurring) (referencing oral argument before that court). To the extent the Government removes even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court.
About time could have used them a few years ago.
“If he Is forced to keep spending money Then even if he wins he loses because the money is already spent”
Correct. Any normal judge would say “sure, I’ll order him to spend $1,000,000,0000, but you need to post a $1,100,000,000 bond (expenditure plus 10%).
Now they need to make the right decision on birthright citizenship.
P
Unfortunately the concept of “due process” for illegal aliens goes all the way back to court cases in the 1950s.
I think those were stupid decisions—but they are there.
President Trump would probably need to declare a national emergency based on millions of illegal aliens in the country and lack of court time/space to accommodate hearings to override those court rulings.
I am totally fine with that btw.
All they did was defuse a sputtering constitutional crisis bomb lit by democrats and their biddable judges.
This was all “resisistance”. They think they are French Maquis lol
I wanna see an Apache dance by Chuckles and Nancy.
Every tyrannical judge who issued one of these Biden-like orders should be investigated along with other political family members and then charged for violating the U.S. Constitution.
WINNING
So....it’s the Appeals Court full-employment ruling...?
Any unfavorable Immigration Court finding can then be appealed? Or no? With perhaps taxpayer funded lawyers?
Democrats will say the SCOTUS decisions apply only to the specific district court, while their district court orders apply universally to the entire nation.
The scientific or academic latin term for this species is knotheadus homos.
So, can Trump put illegals on a plane or bus sand say adios to the homeland?
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.