SCOTUS orders temporary halt of deportations of aliens under Alien Enemies act
I’d like more clarity on this decision and what it means:
In a highly unusual early Saturday morning Order, the Supreme Court has halted all deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
“There is before the Court an application on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible. The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a).
“Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent from the Court’s order.” …
What may have moved a majority of the court to act was the allegation that the current administration actions violated the prior Supreme Court order that removal under the AEA required some as yet unspecified due process to contest whether such persons were in fact gang members subject to the AEA Declaration …
More:
In the middle of the night, SCOTUS has paused Trump from deporting illegals under the Alien Enemies Act. Trump has been relying on this law to effectuate mass deportations of illegals who are also gang members. There are around 11 million illegals in the US. The US does not appear to have another tool by which to readily remove large numbers of illegals. Under our current laws, Trump could only mass deport gang members, and that’s the part being challenged. Relying on the court system to adjudicate each alien case individually would take over a century and would cost taxpayers a fortune. Our current justice system is not equipped to handle the reality of illegal immigration in this country. SCOTUS will need to balance the rights to the individuals against the need of our country to remain sovereign. From there, Congress will need to draft new laws to help the country remain sovereign.
It is a distressing prospect. But it also seems to me to be a temporary halt while the issue is adjudicated and will probably ultimately go back to SCOTUS either way the decision goes. I can’t say whether this present decision would indicate that some high hurdle will be placed on such deportations in any final SCOTUS decision; perhaps it will and perhaps it won’t. But if it does become that difficult to deport them, Congress will have to act, and act pretty soon while the GOP still controls it.
Which brings us to the subject of the filibuster/cloture rules. For this vote, perhaps the GOP would change the rules?
Also, could these particular people get some sort of expedited hearing, if a hearing is the issue?
But for other aliens, there’s this from the comments at LI:
They could all be deported under the normal deportation process. The problem is the ‘normal’ deportation process is WOEFULLY inadequate considering the enormity of the problem (thanks to Biden). This is why the illegals that were being paroled into the country and assigned first appearance dates (or whatever the technical term is), were given dates YEARS into the future. I think those allowed in in 2024 were given dates into the 2030s. For those people – which numbers probably 10M or more in just the last 4-years – the ‘normal’ deportation process will take years. For the so-called ‘gotaways,’ that time-table is shortened because they can’t credibly claim protections under the asylum process. But still, it’s likely going to take the better part of several months (or longer) to get them removed once they’re in FEDERAL custody. The Alien Enemy’s Act was a nifty way for the Administration to pare that time from months to weeks, even days.
https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1913647991841284098
“District court judge in the case that ACLU double-leap-frogged to SCOTUS entered an order detailing the timing of everything. This order makes even more striking SCOTUS decision to toss “norms” to the wayside. 1/ “
https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1913719452912308678
“Trump files response in Alien Enemies Act case. I didn’t think Sauer would wait until tomorrow or Monday. 1/ “
The Democrats intention is to bring Trump’s deportations to a crawl. They allowed those illegals in for a reason (new voters and cultural destruction) and they’re not about to let Trump thwart their plan.
Congress will have to get busy and write some laws that will allow immediate deportation of any illegal alien with even a hint of gang/drug/trafficking/etc. activity.
The faux outrage over due process is just that – FAUX. Did they care about due process for Jan 6ers?
Good luck enforcing that.
I’d sooner “that will allow immediate deportation of any illegal alien” period.
Guess we are going to get stuck with 20 million Illegals
We are under the Marxists Commissars who happen to wear robes now
There are other things that can be done with respect to illegal immigrants; I’m not sure if any can be done by executive order or require Congress to vote.
25% or higher tax on remittances to foreign nations.
Withholding social services to people illegally here- all but truly emergent medical care, shelter, education.
Withhold all federal aid to sanctuary cities and states.
I’m sure there are others.
At this point, the gates have been closed, a good start. People will respond to incentives.
If Congress does not pass appropriate legislation, Trump could make this a major issue in 2026 election to reverse the usual pattern of the President’s party losing seats in midterms. Trump has been beating the tar out of the Dems on the Kilmar deal, and the Dems show no sign of recognizing that they are only digging themselves a bigger hole by lionizing that Young Man of Maryland.
IMO, the Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to obstruct the Executive Branch from enforcing the law. When simply an issue of illegal immigration, between apprehension and deportation there is no ‘point of entry’ for the judicial system. To argue otherwise is to essentially claim that as soon as an illegal ‘immigrant’ steps across the border, they have the same basic rights as a US citizen. In which case, ‘citizenship’ is nearly a meaningless word. As the only meaningful constitutional difference between a citizen and a foreign national is the right to vote in State and federal elections.
US citizens have a right to due process. Foreign nationals who are here illegally are by definition, criminals and do not have a right to due process for that crime. If they wish to claim asylum, they may do so through the legal process after being deported. They have but one option; return to their country of origin or any country that will accept them.
The Biden administration deported over 600,000 during his term.
“The Biden administration deported over 600,000 during his term.”
That sounds impressive until you consider it let in many millions of illegals during “his” term. Or whoever of the unelected cabal was actually running the government in place of the dotard.
Let’s hope Trump & Co. can expedite this:
“TRUMP’S CIVIL SERVICE REFORM IS BAAACCCKKKK!!!! It was called “Schedule F” late in Trump’s first Oval Office go-round, but the much-revised and improved version released late Friday in his second term is known as “Schedule Policy/Careers,” or SPC….”
https://instapundit.com/715365/
+ Bonus:
“Trump’s Counter-Revolution Strategy: Flood The Zone, Drain The Swamp”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trumps-counter-revolution-strategy-flood-zone-drain-swamp
And…related:
“Lab Leak: White House Unveils Massive Report On The True Origins Of COVID 19”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/lab-leak-white-house-unveils-massive-report-true-origins-covid-19
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-versus-meteor
Short version: The Courts are going to have their hands full trying to continue to PROTECT the Democratic Party’s PERVERSE POLICIES as well as PLACE A FIREWALL AROUND THE COVERUPS. (But they will no doubt do their bestest….)
Congress needs to pass some new law specifically about the deportation process to speed it up.
There should probably be an increase in the number of Federal Judges so as to have more—lots more Republicans on the benches would likely help, As well as bother Dems.
Aren’t there laws against employers employing illegals? The DoJ going after some of those, even some Rep owned, especially in sanctuary cities, would send a good message. DOGE cleaning up the SS files is also good.
If the border remains closed to illegals, a slow fight with courts makes Trump look pretty good, but Reps in Congress weak. More bad than good for 2026.
Most of what Trump is doing, or trying to do, is what I voted for.
FOAF
That wasn’t my point. I don’t think there were any complaints from the Dems about due process. So all 600,000 received relentless due process?
@Tom Grey:Aren’t there laws against employers employing illegals?
Lot so people think this, but that is not how the laws work. Few people seem to have actually gone through the formal process of hiring someone and checking their status:
I have, and indeed I was in charge of E-Verify for one small business.
It is illegal to check if someone is here illegally until after you have hired the person. It is not illegal to hire or employ an illegal. It is illegal, a Title VII violation, to refuse to hire someone because you think they might be illegal. It is illegal to request proof of employment eligibility before you hire. There are many laws that require an employer to hire, and prevent an employer from firing, someone who may be illegal.
If E-Verify can’t confirm eligibility, it is perfectly legal to continue to employ that person. It is illegal to fire them simply because E-Verify says there’s a problem with their documents.
It is illegal to knowingly and deliberately hire an illegal, and it is illegal to pay people under the table. But if they apply and go through your screening and interview process and get hired and you document everything appropriately, you as an employer have done nothing illegal if they turn out to be illegal, you have been following the laws.
Josh Blackman on the A.A.R.P. v. Trump case: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/19/process-formalism-in-texas-but-not-at-scotus/
And another:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/19/scotus-violates-marbury-v-madison-by-granting-ex-parte-injunction-against-executive-branch-in-its-original-jurisdiction/
@neo:Which brings us to the subject of the filibuster/cloture rules. For this vote, perhaps the GOP would change the rules?
If they are serious, they will: judge them accordingly…
A numerical majority has multiple techniques for a one-time set aside of the cloture rule, which have been used before whenever drama is not desired. For example, they can incorporate the bill into a bill that can’t be filibustered. They can also demand that cloture be invoked, and then when the chair rules against them they can appeal the ruling to the majority. They will almost certainly not formally change the Senate rules.
If they want to do GOPe failure theater, they will claim the Senate Parliamentarian (who can be overruled by a numerical majority, or fired by the Majority Leader) won’t let them get the bill through, or have a big to-do over a cloture vote that misses by that much. Judge them accordingly…
Question for Niketas C (or anyone who knows this stuff):
Can the law/regulation be changed to require that every new hire go through e-verify prior to starting work? It might require Elon’s guys to set up a fast, easy and intuitive website, but it certainly should be possible to do this is a month or so.
Following the e-verify check, the hiring entity gets a confirmation number to attach to the new hire’s file. That’s the carrot- a safe harbor for the company.
The stick is that if the company fails to get a legit confirmation number, any expenses that company claims for that employee’s wages and benefits becomes tax fraud, and the IRS is sicced on that company.
Is the current e-verify policy as described by Niketas written into law, or is it just a Labor Dept regulation that can be (more or less) easily changed?
The e-verify stuff above shows the feds actually protect illegal labor while pretending not to.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/20/justice-alito-dissents-both-the-executive-and-the-judiciary-have-an-obligation-to-follow-the-law/
Josh Blackman yet again, this time with a pdf link to J. Alito’s dissent, which see.
Just read Volokh before sdferr posted it. Lawless SCOTUS is the short summary. Now if this lawless order ends up taking out SCOTUS that might be hoisted by one’s petard. But only if it was a trap laid by Trump.
BTW this is line from Hamlet
“For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and ‘t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon.”
A modern version might be
The combat engineer will be killed by his own demolition charge because I will preemptively detonate it by counter mining under him.
@West Texas Intermediate Crude:Can the law/regulation be changed to require that every new hire go through e-verify prior to starting work?
Any law can always be changed, of course, but E-Verify is not instant. It can take weeks. DOGE is a handful of people and they can’t just build you a secure online system to instantly verify employment eligibility, though there are any number of software companies that can.
But you don’t need an elite team of hackers anyway. If your Social Security card could be scanned and instantly accepted or declined, the way every gas station and newstand can with credit cards, there would be very few problems.
Is the current e-verify policy as described by Niketas written into law
I quoted from the MOU, but the MOU is intended to be in compliance with all of the relevant laws. The MOU says “do it this way and Department of Labor will not sue or prosecute you”.
It’s complicated in that sometimes “the law” doesn’t explicitly say one thing somewhere: you have to “stitch together” bit and pieces that add up to the thing. Usually judges have done the stitching in how they ruled on cases. Employers rely on guidance from the Federal departments that are in charge of suing and prosecuting people.
https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/04/20/van-hollen-refuses-to-say-his-bro-garcia-is-not-ms-13-because-he-is-watch-n2411663
Actually, van Halen probably didn’t quite understand the question, the interviewer having phrased it rather poorly.
(As they say in the business, a negative interrogative is not a prime perogative…)
actually hes more of a sammy haggar, he really ruined that band