Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
While Trump celebrated, the ACLU also claimed victory, emphasizing the guaranteed due process.
The ACLU better act fast, though, because there is no due process coming.
The Administration is about to make a whole bunch more "Administrative errors" and then when the families refile their suits in the proper venue the Administration will go "Whoopsie! We seem to have misplaced them in El Salvador, no backsies, sorry about that!" with their fingers crossed behind their back.
Just like they did with the kids that disappeared during their family separation policy in Trump's first term. My bet is that they were trafficked.
Sorry what? What guaranteed due process do they mean?
Based on all the articles I read, this ruling was actually quite narrow, they simply ruled that the families raised the suit in the wrong venue. Specifically, they made no statement on the legality of invoking the Alien Enemies act.
However, even the justices who voted in favor of the Administration noted that they expected these detainees to have a hearing where they can challenge their deportation before being deported, even if the Alien enemies act applies.
I am saying that will simply not happen. The Administration will skip over that part and say "We won! Ship 'em out" before the families have a chance to raise the suit in the other venue.
Their opinion focused entirely on the dumb technicality of where the lawsuit was filed, but then turned around and used that as the sole reason to clear away Boasberg's orders and let the government carry on deporting people.
Also, they talk a bit game about defendants' rights to hearings, but they also made it so every defendant has to challenge individually (in other words, no one big ACLU suit representing everyone finding the whole scheme unconstitutional and a bunch of defendants will probably fall through the cracks), they have to challenge in the fifth circuit in Texas (the most pro-trumo court in the country), and (with the Abrego Garcia case) they aren't making the government bring people back from El Salvador so these defendants are presumably going to be stuck in the El Salvador dungeon unable to assist their attorneys while those cases are going on.
That all said, while the court is obviously trying to give the Trump administration everything they want while still making it look like there will be a real trial, I don't doubt that this administration is stupid/arrogant enough to get pissy about how it looks and try to blow off even these kangaroo court hearings like you're saying.
What a bunch of fucking cowards. They know that they don't have any power anymore so they are doing everything that they can to delay the general public from realizing that.
Words just can mean whatever the fuck you want now, I suppose.
Lucky SCOTUS stopped Biden from overstepping Executive Power by forgiving some student debt...
Barrett again... Seems like she's regretting her vote to make trump a dictator.
Shouldn't America have to be at war with Venezuela for this to apply?
When you wipe your ass with the Constitution every morning who cares about a few words from some obscure ancient law you're abusing?
Random sub stack I found that makes a couple of good points , tl;dr they didn't instantly kill the case so all the pundits can say the rule of law still exists, but this ruling rigs the proceedings going forward in such a way that it's going to be much harder for people facing deportations to win
...the more I read the Court’s Monday night ruling in Trump v. J.G.G., in which a 5-4 majority vacated a pair of temporary restraining orders entered by Chief Judge Boasberg in the Alien Enemy Act case, the more I think that this ruling really is a harbinger, and a profoundly alarming one, at that. To be clear, it’s not a sweeping win for the Trump administration; the Court did not suggest that what Trump is doing is legal, or, just as bad, that it might not be subject to judicial review. Indeed, the Court went out of its way to emphasize that individuals detained under the Act are entitled to due process, including meaningful judicial review.
But much like last Friday’s ruling in the Department of Education grants case, it’s still a ruling by a Court that seems willing to hide behind less-than-obvious legal artifices to make it harder for federal courts to actually restrain conduct by the current administration that everyone believes to be unlawful. As in that decision, here, a 5-4 majority has made it much harder for litigants to bring systemic challenges to what the Trump administration is doing. And especially in the broader context in which the Alien Enemy Act litigation, specifically, has unfolded, the justices in the majority got there by burying their heads in the sand.
...
The short per curiam opinion effectively says two things: First, the Court held that individuals detained and facing removal under the Alien Enemy Act are, contra the Trump administration, absolutely entitled to due process before they are removed, including meaningful judicial review. That should’ve been obvious, but it’s nice having the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirm that point. Indeed, the Court expressly held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” This is actually good.
But second, the Court also held that such judicial review must come through habeas petitions—not through the APA. In other words, the five individual plaintiffs in J.G.G. need to bring their suit as a habeas petition—and, given where they’re detained, not in the D.C. federal district court. This holding was, suffice it to say, not exactly obvious. Indeed, there are some compelling arguments that, although habeas is a vehicle through which to challenge the government’s use of the Alien Enemy Act, it’s not (and never has been) the exclusive vehicle for doing so. But here we are.
...
... lawyers could presumably try to file a habeas petition in D.C. on behalf of the individuals already removed to El Salvador—one that will depend upon how Abrego Garcia is resolved. But even if the Supreme Court sides with the lower courts there, and holds that federal courts can order the federal government to take steps to bring these folks back if their removals were unlawful, by vacating Boasberg’s TROs, the majority has made that review that much more difficult and potentially ineffective. That’s plenty alarming all by itself.
... going forward, assuming that this Court is going to aggressively enforce the district-of-confinement rule for individuals still in the United States (which I wrote about in the context of the Khalil case), that means habeas petitions will have to be brought in the district in which those individual detainees are each detained. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent raises the specter of individuals being held all over the country, but I think it’s more likely most of these cases end up in the Southern District of Texas—and, thus, in the Fifth Circuit. (Much like the Department of Education ruling is going to likely mean that at least some of the funding cutoff cases end up in the Court of Federal Claims.) ... Trading APA review for habeas, even if the remedies were otherwise commensurate, is trading the ideologically diverse (and national security-experienced) D.C. federal courts for the most right-leaning federal courts in the country. And the justices know that, too.
... regardless of which court conducts the review, there are at least some reasons to fear that the scope of review in a habeas petition won’t be commensurate with what’s available under the APA. Among other things, there’s less case law supporting emergency relief in habeas cases. There are additional practical roadblocks to certifying a class of affected individuals in habeas cases (because each member of the class is presumably challenging their detention, versus seeking facial review of government action). Unlike under the APA, there’s no specter of “universal” relief in a habeas case. And, although Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence plays up the use of habeas historically to prevent unlawful transfers to foreign countries before they happen, the very D.C. Circuit case that he cites in support, “Kiyemba II” (in which he was one of the judges), held that Guantánamo detainees could not use habeas to block their transfer to a foreign country based upon fear that they would be tortured there—so long as the federal government said they wouldn’t be. (I’ve written at some length about how wrong then-Judge Kavanaugh was on this point.)
Thus, there will be judicial review of the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemy Act... But the review we end up with will be far more impoverished than what was already unfolding before Chief Judge Boasberg. That review may still suffice in individual cases, but what the Court’s ruling completely refuses to engage with (unlike Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, which tackles it head-on) is how much the Trump administration is attempting to use the Alien Enemy Act systemically—for mass, summary removals rather than case-by-case, individualized adjudications. By relying upon an unpersuasive procedural technicality to force more individualized litigation, the Court is effectively bringing a pea-shooter to a gunfight.
Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250408111208/https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/140-the-disturbing-myopia-of-trump
e; added tl;dr
Hey look, the SCROTUS fucked up again.