SCOTUS rules against Alien Enemies deportations
SCOTUS ruled yesterday:
Trump tried to address the problem as to a particularly vicious gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA), by invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), which allows summary removal. That effort has been stymied by multiple courts, incuding the Supreme Court, ruling that persons subject to removal under the AEA are entitled to due process before removal. Depending what the due process looks like may render deportation efforts futile – you can’t have millions of trials, even if they are truncated proceedings.
Is the Constitution a suicide pact? We’re in the process of finding out.
The Supreme Court ruled [Friday] that the hold it previously put on efforts to remove TdA via the AEA will stay in place. A lot of the Per Curiam Opinon related to jurisdiction, including the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, to decide these matters.
The bottom line is the Supreme Court put everything on hold, and told the 5th Circuit to figure out what type of due process the TdA members should get. Removal of TdA members through other statutory authority, other than AEA, could continue …
It’s a bit complicated and I think, from what I’ve read online, there’s a fair amount of confusion about what it means. That’s in part because it’s still undetermined what the “due process” would consist of; SCOTUS has for the moment left that question to the lower court. This only applies to the Tren de Aragua members deported under the Alien Enemies Act.
It might be a good idea if Congress were to act on this question to create some expedited process. Then again, SCOTUS might rule it unconstitutional if it lacks what SCOTUS considers due process.
The big issue is that Biden was allowed to open the borders, and the millions who came in that way should be just as easy to deport. Illegal entry shouldn’t be a one-way street.
Give them a four minute hearing in front of a police officer. Tell the judges that if they want more process, they can house these gangbangers in their garage.
until some judge decides no, well the immigration control act, doesn’t apply because reasons, do they think this concession will stop the assault on the Court by progs,
just like they sprung Hamas operative, and British agent Mahdawi, from Vermont prison, as they are pushing to release another Hamas sympathizer Ozturk, from lock
up as well as a third
https://www.firstpost.com/world/us-judge-orders-release-of-indian-scholar-badar-khan-suri-arrested-hamas-links-ties-georgetown-university-13888584.html
Judicial Commissar’s are not going to stop anytime soon. And the Supreme Robes are backing them up.
Souls of reason, knowing all that needs knowing, find governing their own private possession. We’re in for a long dark night.
The Supreme Court sincerely wishes to engage the issue in an oh-so-civilized manner, after the Biden cabal tore up any and every federal immigration statute it pleased, failed to enforce the law as it has existed for decades and lied that it was “doing everything possible” to control the border for four years. Biden was Obama’s revenge on a country that had given him everything he wanted, except for becoming “fundamentally transformed.” That was the insult that Obama could not brook, so he used the mentally challenged and amoral avatar of Biden to finish the job. And Biden accommodated him, understanding that by doing so he was achieving his two most important goals in life: first, becoming President and second (or perhaps first, who knows) enriching himself and his family beyond his wildest dreams. Then came Trump and the posse of normal Americans who came with him, Wyatt Earp-like to return law and order to the country. But four of the Justices–the females (assuming Affirmative Action Jackson has figured out what a woman is)– remain opposed to this necessary cleansing, two of them clearly favoring their racial/ethnic comperes, the other two casting votes that seem to depend on the state of their hormones at any given time. Kavanaugh is still afraid of his shadow after the beating he took in nomination and Roberts…? Who knows what motivates him? Only stalwarts Alito and Thomas seem to understand that it is do-or-die time in America. Fighting a cage death match under Marquis of Queensbury Rules while your opponent is allowed to use knives, clubs and brass knuckles is guaranteed to produce a beating. The question remains whether the country can go the distance.
Mr. Roberts and MS Barrett, will you please do what you are supposed to do. Get a backbone
I wrote this as a follow-up to a comment in the Biden post yesterday, but it seems more appropriate to the subject matter here. Caution: it’s longer even than my usual monographs, because I enjoy tracking down what I can on the internet in a way that would be impossible if I had to find every printed source document.
Comment continued from here:
https://thenewneo.com/2025/05/16/joe-biden-what-were-they-thinking/#comment-2802422
For one measure of “okay for us but not for you” actions, specifically by the judiciary, check the deportations vs. nationwide injunctions of Democrat presidents compared to Trump.
NOTE: in all cases herein, “immigration” means coming to or staying in America contrary to any of the many immigration laws, which is by definition illegal.
I saw this count in another blog’s comments: deportations in the millions for Bush, Clinton, and Obama, with 0 injunctions, in the low hundred-thousands for Trump (probably 47 but not specified) with 30 injunctions (and counting).
Although satisfying emotionally, that seemed a little extreme, so I vetted it myself as much as I could.
The claim (which didn’t mention Biden or Trump 45) appears to come from Alec Lace, who’s tweet was then amplified by Elon Musk, per this Politifact post.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/apr/30/trump-immigration-injunctions-deportations/
Politifact says the “roughly 30” number came from Stephen Miller, with immigration cases unspecified.
Source of Politifact’s stats (see also the congress.gov articles below):
And then they Politifacters give their opinions (because what their experts say are facts):
Well, you can decide that for yourself if the challenged norms were “constitutional” or just “the way Democrats want to do things.” Trump, his lawyers, and his voters believe the exact opposite: the norms were unconstitutional usurpations of presidential or legislative power, and Trump is righting the ship before it sinks. “Standing apart from prior administrations” is not per se the wrong thing to do.
****************
So, is Politicfact correct? Mostly so on the numbers. Their opinion is debatable, as usual.
This is the most complete graph of returns I’ve found so far, and it doesn’t cover the new administration figures (it’s only been 4 months!) Mouse over the graph to see actual numbers. I like its use of different types of returns, and then the total of all illegals sent away or going back on their own. It generally supports the deportation numbers claimed, with roughly 3 million for Trump 45.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-deportation-numbers-obama-biden-b2649257.html
Another wordier post for the same data.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/
So far under Trump 47: Actual removals are down from Biden’s, but with many in detention who have not yet been deported.
https://www.axios.com/2025/04/01/immigrant-removals-deportations-trump
***************
As for the nationwide injunctions, here’s an excellent breakdown of the stats through 2024, especially written for legal beagles, covering all the case subjects and including lots of other data.
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48467/R48467.1.pdf
The numbers under Bush and Obama are too low to be significant even if broken out for immigration alone (immigration funding is counted separately), which supports Politifact’s statements.
The number of immigration cases that Biden “lost” in one term is 8 (with possibly a few more in his final year), and the same for Trump in his first term is 36.
So far in Trump’s second term the number is one for sure (of 17 through March 27), and possibly 19 more.
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48476/R48476.3.pdf
That’s out of 60 nationwide injunctions of any kind (see Politifact above), which is far greater than any other president of either party — 44 total from Clinton through Biden in 16 years, including Bush; 124 total for Trump in 5 years, with 56 being immigration related.
It’s hard to imagine that there are that many de facto “norms” that can be challenged, let alone any true Constitutional precepts!
In every other case (that I know of) where a major “gang”* problem has been exacerbated by legalisms, that country has ended with death squads.
I hope we don’t get there, despite the temptation, because, regardless of original motivation, the squads wind up being used for “private ” vendettas.
*gang = criminal, drug, revolutionary
“Is the Constitution a suicide pact?”
Suicide or homicide; it seems that these “justices” don’t care. They are insulated by their lifetime appointments, wealth and security details.