(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that a lower federal court doesn’t have jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed to prevent deportations of violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua prison gang members illegally in the U.S.
The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to intervene in a case challenging the deportations, and vacated a lower court’s temporary restraining orders that halted them.
“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself. A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” Trump said in response.
In March, Trump issued an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act in response to already declaring that the U.S. was being invaded by criminal foreign nationals, including TdA members, The Center Square reported.
In response, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of five Venezuelans in the U.S. illegally, requesting a district court in the District of Columbia to halt their deportations. After nearly 300 Venezuelans were removed from the U.S. and sent to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, a federal judge granted the request and issued two temporary restraining orders. The judge also ordered those removed be returned, which the Salvadoran president mocked, saying it was “too late,” The Center Square reported.
The judge argued the Trump administration was in defiance of a court order. The administration argued it wasn’t and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a three and a half page opinion, stating, “We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments.”
“Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude[s] judicial review,’ … must be brought in habeas … And ‘immediate physical release [is not] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus,’” the opinion states, citing multiple court cases.
It also notes that for habeus corpus cases, the jurisdiction for ruling must in “the district of confinement,” which would be Texas, where the illegal foreign nationals were detained, not the District of Columbia where the lawsuit was filed.
“The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action,” the opinion states.
It also notes “that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings” and that under the “AEA, detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act.”
“Detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal,” the opinion states. “The only question is which court will resolve that challenge,” which it says “lies in the district of confinement.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a separate concurring opinion.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, arguing the administration’s actions were done “without any due process of law, under the auspices of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law designated for times of war.”
When Trump declared an invasion at the southwest border and designated Mexican cartels and TdA as FTOs, he argued they were engaging in asymmetric warfare against Americans, The Center Square reported.
He took action after a record more than 1 million Venezuelans illegally entered the U.S. under the Biden administration, including TdA members who expanded criminal operations in at least 22 states including killing Americans, The Center Square reported.
The dissent also argues the Supreme Court intervening in the case “is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.
“Against the backdrop of the U. S. Government’s unprecedented deportation of dozens of immigrants to a foreign prison without due process, a majority of this Court sees fit to vacate the District Court’s order. The reason, apparently, is that the majority thinks plaintiffs’ claims should have been styled as habeas actions and filed in the districts of their detention. In reaching that result, the majority flouts well-established limits on its jurisdiction, creates new law on the emergency docket, and elides the serious threat our intervention poses to the lives of individual detainees.”
After the ruling, removal of Venezuelan TdA members illegally in the U.S. will continue.
