Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito condemned the decision to halt the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
“In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order,” Alito wrote in his dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.”
“Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J.G.G., and this Court should follow established procedures,” he noted.
Alito’s dissent addresses an April 19 unsigned order where the Supreme Court directed the government “not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also requested that the Supreme Court provide further information pertaining to the “weighty question whether the AEA [Alien Enemies Act] can be invoked outside of wartime against a criminal organization and for only the fourth time in U.S. history.”
“Applicants respectfully request that this Court retain jurisdiction, maintain the injunction, and also consider treating this application as a petition for certiorari before judgment,” the ACLU wrote. “Applicants recognize that this is an extraordinary request given that the district court has not yet ruled on the merits, but believe it is appropriate in light of the government’s actions on April 18, its position that there is no remedy for wrongfully removed individuals, and the fact that the government is moving Venezuelans whom they have labeled as gang members all around the country, making it likely that habeas actions will be required in multiple districts (in addition to the six class habeas petitions already filed by counsel in this case).”
