The Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to refrain from deporting Venezuelan men currently detained in Texas, who are alleged gang members. The court had previously ruled with a narrow 5-4 margin. Unfortunately, this decision merely halts the government’s review under the Alien Enemies Act as legal questions surrounding the case, including standing, are still pending resolution.
However, this ruling does have influential effects on people inside the Northern District of Texas. As such, the case stands at a significant crossroads in the national legal debate over immigrant rights and government power. The court’s ruling brought focus to a rare settlement. In a surprising split, liberal justices joined conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to affirm the Court’s previous order, though conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito strongly dissented.
The Supreme Court should pay particular attention to how the Alien Enemies Act is being executed. Such strong government scrutiny still begs the question of what Covert Act powers should exist for actors that are not enemies on the battlefield in an established war. In reality, historically this has only been used in times of war. This practice necessitates serious questions about how accurately any detainees are assessed as gang members through such a process.
The Supreme Court denied the merits of the application by the lawyers acting on behalf of the detainees. Importantly, it signaled that regardless of the circumstances leading to deportation, people should have the opportunity to challenge those decisions by raising habeas corpus petitions. The court has ordered the Trump administration to respond in short order. This reply is to an opposition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Lee Gelernt, the ACLU’s lead attorney in this case, said he was relieved by the court’s ruling.
“We are relieved that the Supreme Court has not permitted the administration to whisk them away the way others were just last month.” – Lee Gelernt, lead ACLU attorney in the case
He further noted that “These men were in imminent danger of spending their lives in a horrific foreign prison without ever having had a chance to go to court.”
The Supreme Court harshly chastised a Washington judge for the way he conducted his case. They argued that procedural errors may have tipped the result. This decision is a reminder of the precarious line that exists between national security and individual liberties. Its applicability is particularly important for individuals who are the subject of a deportation order under arcane legal regimes.