The Supreme Court struck down a government move to bypass due process in deportation cases, confirming illegal aliens deserve hearings before removal. While this limits government overreach, concerns remain about future abuses. Dissents warn that these actions threaten rights and the rule of law, especially without full review. It's a big win for justice and due process.
The Supreme Court just struck down Boasberg’s TRO in Trump v. JJG - the Alien Enemies Act, case.
The decision is disappointing in its application to people the gov’t already renditioned without due process (and seems to encourages the gov’t to evade judicial review), but… 1/
SCOTUS confirms, contrary to what demagogues like @StephenM and @mrddmia have been screaming, that illegal aliens get due process and that the Alien Enemies Act requires notice and an opportunity to be heard *before* removal. This means habeas in the district of confinement. 2/
JJG also confirms that the gov’t violated the constitutional rights of every person on the planes to CECOT, but they’re effectively outlaws because of prospective application.
Kavanaugh concurs to say, in large part b/c of War on Terror excesses, the decision isn’t novel. 3/
Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan, Jackson, and (in parts) Barrett—cue the screeching from legal scholars like @Cernovich and @catturd2.
The dissent emphasizes the grave consequences and the gov’t’s “attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.” 4/
The dissent points out this is only the 4th time the AEA has been used and the 1st outside of an ongoing war. Here, there is no war, and TdA is not a foreign nation. The dissent also notes that the president made his proclamation in private so DHS could avoid judicial review. 5/
The dissent (without Barret here) stresses the gov’t’s gamesmanship. It also notes that the gov’t’s arguments would allow it to snatch and rendition U.S. citizens to CECOT, so long as it does so quickly enough.
And Sotomayor suggests an AEA proclamation may be reviewable. 6/
Now Barret joins. The dissent confirms aspects of the AEA are reviewable. And it strongly cautions against further due-process free renditions. Now, the dissent turns to the procedural matters you can read for yourself. It also says that habeas shouldn’t be the sole remedy. 7/
The dissent ends by again chiding the government for its unclean hands and underlining the danger of its actions here to our rights.
It ends by warning that the gov’t’s actions endanger the rule of law and that the Court’s decision rewards it. 8/
Finally, Jackson dissents separately. She criticizes the slapdash nature of review without full briefing and says at least Korematsu left a record of its mistakes. She also calls out the SHADOW DOCKET.
“For lovers of liberty, this should be concerning.”
For this one, it is. /9
You can read the full decision below.
Then, thank god you’re not one of the people who our gov’t shipped to a gulag without due process.
Because it very well may be that only god can help those people.
UPDATE: In the related case of Noem v. Garcia, the Supreme Court has unanimously ordered the government to return the Maryland man it mistakenly sent to CECOT:
@pjaicomo
BREAKING: SCOTUS affirms Judge Xinis’s order requiring the government to “facilitate” and “effectuate”* the return of Kilmer Abrego Garcia—the Maryland man the government mistakenly sent to El Salvador without due process. 1/ https://t.co/bWaeI1804d
The language of the Court's order is slightly truncated on its docket page.
Compared to the PDF of the order and statement, the docket doesn't include the whole vignette about how the d.ct should use deference and how the gov't should be prepared to share what it's done.
The Supreme Court just struck down Boasberg’s TRO in Trump v. JJG - the Alien Enemies Act, case.
The decision is disappointing in its application to people the gov’t already renditioned without due process (and seems to encourages the gov’t to evade judicial review), but… 1/SCOTUS confirms, contrary to what demagogues like @StephenM and @mrddmia have been screaming, that illegal aliens get due process and that the Alien Enemies Act requires notice and an opportunity to be heard *before* removal. This means habeas in the district of confinement. 2/JJG also confirms that the gov’t violated the constitutional rights of every person on the planes to CECOT, but they’re effectively outlaws because of prospective application.
Kavanaugh concurs to say, in large part b/c of War on Terror excesses, the decision isn’t novel. 3/Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan, Jackson, and (in parts) Barrett—cue the screeching from legal scholars like @Cernovich and @catturd2.
The dissent emphasizes the grave consequences and the gov’t’s “attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.” 4/The dissent points out this is only the 4th time the AEA has been used and the 1st outside of an ongoing war. Here, there is no war, and TdA is not a foreign nation. The dissent also notes that the president made his proclamation in private so DHS could avoid judicial review. 5/The dissent (without Barret here) stresses the gov’t’s gamesmanship. It also notes that the gov’t’s arguments would allow it to snatch and rendition U.S. citizens to CECOT, so long as it does so quickly enough.
And Sotomayor suggests an AEA proclamation may be reviewable. 6/Now Barret joins. The dissent confirms aspects of the AEA are reviewable. And it strongly cautions against further due-process free renditions. Now, the dissent turns to the procedural matters you can read for yourself. It also says that habeas shouldn’t be the sole remedy. 7/The dissent ends by again chiding the government for its unclean hands and underlining the danger of its actions here to our rights.
It ends by warning that the gov’t’s actions endanger the rule of law and that the Court’s decision rewards it. 8/Finally, Jackson dissents separately. She criticizes the slapdash nature of review without full briefing and says at least Korematsu left a record of its mistakes. She also calls out the SHADOW DOCKET.
“For lovers of liberty, this should be concerning.”
For this one, it is. /9You can read the full decision below.
Then, thank god you’re not one of the people who our gov’t shipped to a gulag without due process.
Because it very well may be that only god can help those people.
Stop this now. We will look back in shame.
/ENDUPDATE: In the related case of Noem v. Garcia, the Supreme Court has unanimously ordered the government to return the Maryland man it mistakenly sent to CECOT:One more little note, just for the Court nerds.
The language of the Court's order is slightly truncated on its docket page.
Compared to the PDF of the order and statement, the docket doesn't include the whole vignette about how the d.ct should use deference and how the gov't should be prepared to share what it's done.
yes
The Supreme Court just struck down Boasberg’s TRO in Trump v. JJG - the Alien Enemies Act, case.
The decision is disappointing in its application to people the gov’t already renditioned without due process (and seems to encourages the gov’t to evade judicial review), but… 1/ ... SCOTUS confirms, contrary to what demagogues like @StephenM and @mrddmia have been screaming, that illegal aliens get due process and that the Alien Enemies Act requires notice and an opportunity to be heard *before* removal. This means habeas in the district of confinement. 2/ ... JJG also confirms that the gov’t violated the constitutional rights of every person on the planes to CECOT, but they’re effectively outlaws because of prospective application.
Kavanaugh concurs to say, in large part b/c of War on Terror excesses, the decision isn’t novel. 3/ ... Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan, Jackson, and (in parts) Barrett—cue the screeching from legal scholars like @Cernovich and @catturd2.
The dissent emphasizes the grave consequences and the gov’t’s “attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.” 4/ ... The dissent points out this is only the 4th time the AEA has been used and the 1st outside of an ongoing war. Here, there is no war, and TdA is not a foreign nation. The dissent also notes that the president made his proclamation in private so DHS could avoid judicial review. 5/ ... The dissent (without Barret here) stresses the gov’t’s gamesmanship. It also notes that the gov’t’s arguments would allow it to snatch and rendition U.S. citizens to CECOT, so long as it does so quickly enough.
And Sotomayor suggests an AEA proclamation may be reviewable. 6/ ... Now Barret joins. The dissent confirms aspects of the AEA are reviewable. And it strongly cautions against further due-process free renditions. Now, the dissent turns to the procedural matters you can read for yourself. It also says that habeas shouldn’t be the sole remedy. 7/ ... The dissent ends by again chiding the government for its unclean hands and underlining the danger of its actions here to our rights.
It ends by warning that the gov’t’s actions endanger the rule of law and that the Court’s decision rewards it. 8/ ... Finally, Jackson dissents separately. She criticizes the slapdash nature of review without full briefing and says at least Korematsu left a record of its mistakes. She also calls out the SHADOW DOCKET.
“For lovers of liberty, this should be concerning.”
For this one, it is. /9 ... You can read the full decision below.
Then, thank god you’re not one of the people who our gov’t shipped to a gulag without due process.
Because it very well may be that only god can help those people.
Stop this now. We will look back in shame.
/END ... UPDATE: In the related case of Noem v. Garcia, the Supreme Court has unanimously ordered the government to return the Maryland man it mistakenly sent to CECOT: ... One more little note, just for the Court nerds.
The language of the Court's order is slightly truncated on its docket page.
Compared to the PDF of the order and statement, the docket doesn't include the whole vignette about how the d.ct should use deference and how the gov't should be prepared to share what it's done.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
