The U.S. Supreme Court granted emergency petitions from immigrant groups in Texas, promoting the withdrawal, except for the use of 18th century wartime law.
Friday’s unsigned decision (PDF) is another blow to President Donald Trump’s administration, which attempted to quickly deport undocumented immigrants from the United States using the 1798 alien enemy law.
Only two conservative justices that challenged: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The High Court has issued “injunctive relief” to Venezuelan immigrants who still do not control the merits of Trump’s use of alien enemy laws, but who faced expulsion under centuries-old law.
“We have long thought that “people would not be asked at any given time without an opportunity “from the United States,” the court majority wrote in the ruling.
It reaffirmed the previous opinion that US immigrants are entitled to a fair hearing in the legitimate process, or in other words, in the judicial system, before their deportation.
The incident on Friday was brought about by two unnamed immigrants from Venezuela and was identified only by initials. They are being held at detention centers in northern Texas as they face deportation.
The Trump administration has accused them of other administrations in Venezuela of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. He also portrayed undocumented migration to the US as an “invasion,” and attempted to link Tren de Aragua’s activities in the US to the Venezuelan government.
It justified the use of alien enemy laws that the Trump administration argued and used only three times as much in US history, and only during the war.
But Trump’s use of alien enemy law has spurred legal backlash, with several U.S. district courts hearing petitions from immigrants who fear banishment under the law.
Several judges prohibit the use of the law for the prompt removal. But a Pennsylvania judge ruled that the Trump administration could deploy the law. She proposed 21 days.
The Supreme Court on Friday had no emphasis on whether Trump’s use of law was worth it. Instead, the verdict – a total of 24 pages including dissenting opinions – closely tied to the question of whether the Venezuelan in question deserves relief from impending deportation under the law.
Most of the Commander 9 benches said the “evidence” they saw in the case “the government actually took action on the afternoon of April 18” suggesting that they would “transport migrants from detention facilities to the airport and then return them later.”
The judge argued that they had the right to oppress the case in order to prevent “irreparable harm” to immigrants and to assert jurisdiction over the case. Otherwise, they pointed out that deportation could put immigrants out of their reach.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh went a step further in another opinion and called on the Supreme Court to issue a final and binding judgment, rather than simply granting this one petition.
“This situation calls for a prompt and final resolution that is likely to be available only by this court,” he said.
Thomas and Alito disagreed, arguing that the Supreme Court has not given the lower court enough time to govern the emergency petition.
In the aftermath of the ruling, Trump denounced the true society and portrayed the Supreme Court majority as excessively loosening against immigrants.
“The Supreme Court will not allow us to drive criminals out of our country!” Trump wrote at the beginning of two consecutive posts.
Second, he called Friday’s decision the “American Bad Day” mark. He complained that affirming the right to legitimate proceedings leads to “a long, long and expensive legal process, perhaps years for each individual.”
He also argued that the High Court was preventing him from exercising his enforcement rights.
“The US Supreme Court does not allow me to do what I was elected,” he wrote, imagining the situation in which deportation hearings could lead to “bedram” in the United States.
His administration has long accused the court of interfering with his agenda. However, critics warn that Trump’s actions, particularly his alleged efforts to ignore court orders, are eroding the US constitutional system of checks and balance.
In a post-ruling statement, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the court’s decision as a breakwater against human rights abuses.
Lee Gererund, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigration Rights Project, said:
“Using wartime authority during peace raises very important issues without even giving it a legitimate procedure.”
Today, the Supreme Court boasts a conservative vast majority with six right-leaning judges and three left-leaning judges.
Three of them were appointed by Trump himself. These three were with the majority.