John Roberts Only Postponed the Bigger Fight Over Trump's Deportations

The Supreme Court did not answer two of the biggest legal questions raised by Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court's unsigned order in the Venezuelan deportation case Trump v. J.G.G. was a partial win for President Donald Trump because it lifted the temporary restraining order that a lower court had placed on Trump's deportations. However, the Court's order was also a clear loss for Trump because all nine justices agreed that all deportees under the Alien Enemies Act must be afforded due process, including "notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal." That unanimous holding by the Supreme Court was a clear rejection of the Trump administration's most expansive claims of executive power.

Trump v. J.G.G. is also notable for what it did not say. First, the Court did not say whether or not Trump unlawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act in the first place in order to deport aliens who are alleged to be members of the street gang Tren de Aragua.

There is excellent reason to think that Trump did act unlawfully. According to the text of the Alien Enemies Act, it may only be invoked "whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government." Yet there is no "declared war" with Venezuela and there is no "invasion or predatory incursion" by any "foreign state or government." The gang is not a foreign state and the gang's alleged crimes do not qualify as acts of war by a foreign state. There is zero textual support for Trump's actions.

Second, the Supreme Court did not say whether or not any of the individuals challenging their removals even qualified as removable aliens in the first place under the Alien Enemies Act. Once again, there is good reason to think that the Trump administration has acted unlawfully. As Reason's Jacob Sullum has noted, "the dubious 'alien enemy validation guide' that DHS has used to identify Tren de Aragua members, which includes iffy evidence such as tattoos, social media posts, and 'associating' with 'known' members, makes it plausible that at least some of the targets are victims of unjustified suspicion."

In other words, the Supreme Court did not answer either of the two biggest questions raised by Trump's deportations. But the Court did make it clear that the judiciary can and should provide answers in appropriate cases going forward. "We have held," the Court's order stated, "that an individual subject to detention and removal under [the Alien Enemies Act] is entitled to 'judicial review' as to 'questions of interpretation and constitutionality' of the Act as well as whether he or she 'is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.'"

Such cases will now be filed according to the terms of Trump v. J.G.G. And those cases will soon be working their way toward the Supreme Court. This week's order by the Court only postponed the larger legal fight over Trump's deportations.

Comments

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

Postponement is a government superpower.

[sarcasmic]

Only leftists support due process.

[Don't get eliminated(Lying Jeffy thinks about people having anal sex with their sisters)]

Poor sarcbot.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

I can't tell the difference between sarc and the other leftists like Molly at this point. Well besides the smell of alcohol.

[Don't get eliminated(Lying Jeffy thinks about people having anal sex with their sisters)]

Sarcbot just repeats the same few canned posts in varying ways for every article, regardless of the topic. Tony godiva makes up random bullshit and states it as fact to fit its current argument.

[Doug Heffernan]

Close, but not quite. Due process is totally awesome when it is afforded to the maximum extent possible for Trump himself, or anyone else that Trump decides is due such process. It's only evil/leftist when anyone outside of this designation gets such process. The trick is learning to tell the difference, which can be tricky. The best way to know is just ask Trump if due process is appropriate in some particular circumstance, and then hope that you can rely on any response that he gives before it changes.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)]

Can’t tell if this is an example of Poe’s Law or not.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

Doug is a leftist true believer. Pretty sure he's a sock.

[Liberty_Belle]

Roberts is only delaying the inevitable. He doesn't want to butt heads with the executive branch, but Rump isn't going to flinch. He is going to keep pushing until someone whacks him on the nose.

[Don't get eliminated(Lying Jeffy thinks about people having anal sex with their sisters)]

“Rump”

Clever!

[Super Scary]

Lefties are a superstitious bunch. Saying Trump's actual name gives him power so they try not to say or spell it too often.

[Pear Satirical (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

So Trump is now He Who Must Not Be Named?

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

Do you know who else was “he who shall not be named”?

[InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)]

Just about every Republican president ever according to Donkeys?

[Marshal]

Luckily they're all rehabilitated when they're no longer in power and can be used to attack the next Hitler. It's quite miraculous along the lines of how the filibuster either saves or ends Democracy depending on whether Dems or Reps are using it.

[Fats of Fury]

YHWH?

[Doug Heffernan]

No, saying it three consecutive times conjures up completely terrifying evil orange spirits. So, the entirety of the name should be used sparingly. Do you want to live under an evil orange curse for the rest of your life?

[Social Justice is neither]

Poor commie twat. Maybe if Leftists didn't ignore the law and let in millions to manipulate the electoral map we wouldn't be here.

[JohnZ]

Indeed. That is exactly what the Democrats planned.
The replacement of middle class working Americans with millions of welfare mooching illegal aliens who will vote democrat for decades.
Just remember the words of LBJ after signing his Great Society and other such laws," From now on, we'll have the vote of every ni**er for the next two hundred years."

[JFree]

Roberts and that majority didn't postpone anything. They eliminated all due process for those who are sitting in an El Salvador prison while cucking for Trump's defying court orders. WHEN Trump continues to defy the court's orders, what are the SC majority going to continue to do about it.

Dickless wonders.

[Strawmancasmic, Town Drunk and Gay for Booze]

They did the right thing. It must hurt you to see this country move towards prosperity. And away from murdering Jews.

[MollyGodiva]

You have an odd definition of “prosperity”.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)]

You have an odd definition of “reality”.

[JohnZ]

The reason why they're in CECOT is because, that's where they belong. Gang bangers are of no use to anyone. They are a danger to every community they infest.
They have NO RIGHT to be here.
None.

[Dillinger]

>>must be afforded due process

no, they are permitted habeas petitions in the proper jurisdiction. stop doing it wrong.

[Will Nonya]

A habeas petition sounds like you are saying they are due some sort of process ...

[Dillinger]

yes, but lots of things sound the same and are not the same

[Stupid Government Tricks]

An explanation would be appreciated for this non-lawyer. Every time I read about courts and due process, it sure looks to me like due process merely means following the laws, and courts have gotten pretty darned flexible in what laws pass constitutional muster.

[sarcasmic]

Due process of law means things like having hearing, presenting evidence, access to a defense attorney, being able to confront your accuser, and all that stuff that is supposed to protect people's rights and freedoms.

Trump and his defenders reject and mock due process of law because their entire goal is to violate the rights and freedoms of those they hate.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)]

An explanation by a lawyer, not by someone who stayed at a Knights Inn last night.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

Knights Inn here is where the meth heads stay. So good call for sarc.

[windycityattorney]

Typically, due process requires PRIOR to a deprivation of life, liberty or property [construed broadly]... a) notice that one of the above is at risk of being taken away b) meaningful opportunity to challenge or contest the deprivation c) before a fair or neutral decision maker.

Different types of deprivations require varying levels of process. Hence, people always bitch about how much process someone given the death penalty gets. This is a feature not a bug...because obviously once the death penalty is carried out it can't be fixed if there was a mistake. Trivial deprivations of property may be entitled to less process. Think of a city ordinance violation or something. Oh you were fined $25 cuz you didn't cut your grass for 3months? You are still entitled to process but it ain't going to be what the death penalty defendant gets. Deprivations of liberty get various levels of process again commensurate with the action being taken. Serious deprivations of liberty get more process than trivial ones.

Sending an illegal immigrant to a warm climate gulag that is not their home country as an alien enemy should require a robust process...the govt has taken the extreme position that the executive proclamation itself invoking the alien enemy act is all the process they are due. Racist commenters here agree. But they and the govt they worship are wrong and now the Sup Ct has affirmed they were wrong.

[Marshal]

Racist commenters here agree.

Yet another left winger claiming anyone who disagrees with the left's narrative is racist.

[windycityattorney]

If you have spent more than a day on this site; you would know your retort is total bullshit. So I will assume you are either willfully blind or so ridiculously racist yourself that the moderate racism displayed here every single day doesn't register.

Here is your first clue: due process isn't a leftist narrative. It's a constitutional command. And it's the supreme law of the land. For all the comments about how the illegals deserve to be in CECOT solely because they are illegal... they sure don't care about dear leader or his subordinates following the constitution.

[Marshal]

I will assume you are either willfully blind or so ridiculously racist

Of course you will, it's so much easier for midwits to assume racism than understand reality.

Here is your first clue: due process isn't a leftist narrative.

Here is your first clue: pointing out that disagreeing with you does not prove racism has nothing to do with due process. So your point is entirely irrelevant.

they sure don't care about dear leader or his subordinates following the constitution.

Opposing some element of the constitution is racism? Is this a new definition of racism? Are left wingers racist for opposing free speech?

What a fool.

[JohnZ]

Due process is for American citizens, not gangbangers or illegal aliens.

[Dillinger]

>>An explanation would be appreciated for this non-lawyer.

I find Gaear's in-depth explanations sound. Seek Gaear.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

Garcia had due process. He was given final deportation orders. Like many of the TdA guys as well.

Ironically the due process required under these statutes is determination by DHS.

It is amusing some of you think there is only one type of due process.

[Dillinger]

to be fair lol the author writes to confuse.

[MollyGodiva]

They are forcing every individual prisoner to file individual cases when the legal issues are the same for all. How are poor people in federal immigration detention, with very limited access to the outside world supposed to find and communicate with a lawyer?

That part of the ruling was misdirection. It looks like a win for due process but is not. All they have to do is make to too difficult to get a lawyer and they can deport at will and claim due process was satisfied.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

You went from cope to seethe in under 24 hours. Amusing.

[JohnZ]

Cry me a river.

[JFree]

So where do they file a habeas petition from prison in El Salvador?

[Dillinger]

I'm not an immigration attorney and have not been imprisoned but if stories are true I assume they are permitted meetings with counsel ... and some of those NGOs have enough money to send lawyers, guns and money ... but what do I know?

[JohnZ]

Who cares, they're not going anywhere anyway.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Another pointless fiction piece from Reason. The court didn't delay anything. They did not rule on the legality of the act because no one with standing actually challenged it. The plaintiffs certainly made a lot of hyperbolic claims in front of a deeply compromised judge who had no jurisdiction to hear the case. But the litigation was about procedural issues not the merits of the administration's interpretation of the law. And yes all nine justices agreed with the administration that clearly stated that the named plaintiffs were entitled to due process via habeas corpus. The great legal minds at Reason are convinced that Trump acted illegally and apparently believe that the Court should somehow make that finding without a trial. Really stupid shit.

[MollyGodiva]

That is kinda the point. They rule for Trump on procedural reasons that they very easily could have ruled against him on.

[windycityattorney]

I'm calling bullshit. The court didn't address standing it addressed jurisdiction/venue. These are not the same. The govt only conceded they were entitled to due process in the Sup Ct. I listened to the DC Cir oral argument and the govt said in response to direct questions from the 3 judge panel that the TdA detainees were not entitled to notice of their removal because the executive proclamation invoking the AEA said they were subject to immediate apprehension, detention and removal.

If you can explain how that position is consistent with ANY level of due process I would be happy to hear it. The fact of the matter is the govt was trying to maintain the fiction that the executive's proclamation itself and the executive's determination these individuals were subject to the proclamation was all the process they were due. That's the accurate procedural history and that is why people who care about due process were alarmed.

And now that the Sup Ct ruled; a federal judge in Texas as well as one in SDNY have already stopped removals to CECOT due to the proclamation. Briefing in those courts will carry on. So yes, it did cause a delay because now we are starting from scratch and having two competing courts deciding similar issues that would have been addressed in the DC case had the Sup Ct not intervened to rule on venue. Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/federal-judges-limit-trump-alien-enemies-act-deportations-rcna200418

[Stupid Government Tricks]

"There is excellent reason to think that Trump did act unlawfully."

There is also excellent reason to think that Trump did act lawfully. That's the beauty of the Rule of Law in this and every other modern country -- they are interpreted by Men and infinitely flexible. What was OK yesterday is bad today by precedent which will be overruled and OK again tomorrow.

[MollyGodiva]

Name an excellent reason how Trump acted legally when he violated the text of the law.

[sarcasmic]

Because holding Trump to the letter of the law is lawfare.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

What letter?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I've dumped this screed before. Rule of Law is a fiction, a fig leaf covering up Rule of Men.
=================
The rule of law is a myth.

As I understand "rule of law, not rule of men", laws are enacted by some process relatively more legitimate than unaccountable thugs punishing people on a whim, so that the people who are expected to honor and obey those laws can know what the laws are and understand them. Current judicial systems honor this more in the breach than the observance, preferring ritual to justice.

* There are far too many laws and regulations for anyone to even know what they are. Forgot nonsensical victimless crimes like being a one-year $100,000 crime to pick up an eagle feather from the forest floor. What is the difference between second- and third-degree burglary? How do burglary and robbery differ? Why are shoplifting and embezzlement yet further separate categories of theft? Everyone knows theft is wrong; why all the different categories?

* Because lawyers like to quibble. It is the essence of their work. If laws were intelligible to laymen, lawyers would be out of work. If guilty defendants did not have to argue over which degree of burglary they committed, they would not need lawyers with expensive educations and State work permits. Innocent defendants get railroaded regardless of the degree of the crime they did not commit.

* Appeals courts prove lawyers know their laws are incomprehensible. How else can you explain that defendants, at the bottom of the pile, are expected to know everything that is legal and illegal before doing anything; jurors have to be unanimous, but can deliberate as long as they want and ask the judge to pretty please clarify tricky legal points; appeals court justices hear learned conflicting arguments from lawyers, spend several months or years discussing the merits with each other and their law clerks, consult libraries full of books the jurors and defendants didn't have, and still can't agree on the result, splitting 2-1 or 9-6; and Supreme Court justices have another year or two of similar discussions and studies, and still split 5-4. How can it possibly make sense that the more education and resources and power you have, the less you can be held accountable for knowing less than the defendant at the bottom?

* "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" say cops and lawyers and judges. Yet cops can arrest people without knowing the law, spend hours with colleagues and prosecutors and still not come up with a law to justify the arrest after the fact, and courts hold them immune from accountability. See here (https://reason.com/2024/10/11/scotus-revives-lawsuit-against-missouri-cop-who-jailed-a-man-for-being-an-asshole/) for as clear an example as you could want.

What is my cure? Go paw through my Substack if you want details, but here's the gist of it.

* Get rid of laws and lawyers. Complicate contracts and store policies as much as you want; they are voluntary.

* Make one law: "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff."

* Only victims (or guardians, etc) can prosecute. Losers pay full restitution: travel expenses, lost wages, everything.

* If you lie authoritatively, whether in testimony or selling used cars, that is perjury, and the punishment is the "issue at stake", whatever you were trying to do, whether you succeeded or not. Frame someone for murder, be punished for murder.

* If you stall and reject your duty to help resolve disputes, you are malingering and get no further say in the proceedings.

Sure, it's not perfect. But anyone who thinks current legacy systems are better hasn't been paying attention. Propose your own alternative, defend the status quo, your choice.

[sarcasmic]

I'd be interested to see what would come out of an AI that was fed all the laws and regulations on the books and told to find inconsistencies, contradictions and redundancies.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)]

I’m not so sure you’d understand it, Sarc. It’d be way too far over your head and graduating grade level.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

He would rely on the fake citations that AI generates.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Criminy! It's the courts that decide what is excellent and what is not. They've shown plenty of flexibility in that over the years. Look at Dred Scott, the Slaughterhouse cases, Plessey, there's a zillion cases.

Not even you are that ignorant. You can play ignorant in the comments, but not even you really are that ignorant.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)]

Molly is about as ignorant as they come. I wouldn’t underestimate her depths of either ignorance, dishonesty, or both.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

Which text?

[MollyGodiva]

The court will rule 5-4 for Trump. They have continuously backed Trump and re-written the Constitution to protect him. They already punted on easy cases.

[Don't get eliminated(Lying Jeffy thinks about people having anal sex with their sisters)]

Cite?

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

What rewrite?

[Pear Satirical (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Like when they declared a penalty a tax? Wait no, that was Obama.

[JohnZ]

Or when thousands of protestors on Jan. 6 were thrown in prison without legal representation for four years. No trial, no lawyer, no medical treatment, no family visits, no contact with the outer world. Some of them tortured and beaten. How many women were raped?
This was under the Obiden administration.
The past four years were the REAL NAZIs.

[AT]

*checks the Constitution*

No, it's still the same.

[Don't get eliminated(Lying Jeffy thinks about people having anal sex with their sisters)]

Actually a big question was answered regarding leftist organizations judge shopping and having district judges seize Article 2 powers.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Yes that will affect a lot of the judge shopped cases.

[Marshal]

We haven't even gotten to the real question yet, including in this article. The real question is "what justifies cancelling someone's visa or immigration status".

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

DHS determination.

The "we need congress to act" side is really against congress writing no judicial review for a lot of these things.

[Marshal]

Even if it's an administrative policy that policy needs to be set by the executive and communicated to both incoming visa / immigration recipients and the public.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

The policy is set by the executive and people should know that if they get a deportation order they'll probably get deported.

[Marshal]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you mean you object to telling people what will get them deported?

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

I use the same standards as global visas. It is the whims of the country granting the visa.

[Marshal]

I reject outright using global standards. I don't know exactly what you mean by whims but that sounds like allowing ICE agents to decide based on their personal standards which I also reject. We should decide our standards and make them clear.

For example we should deport:

1. Anyone found guilty of a violent or property crime, or a felony.
2. Anyone interfering with the rights of others such as interrupting classes, others' speech or assembly, or building takeovers.
3. Anyone expressing support for terrorism or a terrorist group.
4. Anyone who advocates a multi-tier political structure based on race, religion, or gender such as apartheid or Jim Crow.
5. Anyone expressing generalized hatred of America such as the "Great Satan".

I'm sure other people would draw the line in other places, and I'm probably missing some ideas. But this is the discussion. When the due process issue is worked out none of the people currently complaining are going to accept that and walk away. Every one will then flip to objecting to the reasons why people are getting deported.

[sarcasmic]

1, yes.

2, you mean like the heroes of January 6, 2021? Of course not. Because you judge by who, not what.

The rest show that you, like the leftists you hate, believe that rights are not inherent but rather something to be bestowed, and taken away, by government.

The only difference between you Trump defenders and the people you hate is who, not what.

Oh, and tell us how Trump weaponizing government isn't weaponizing government because they did it first. Fucking partisan moronic lying sack of shit.

[Marshal]

you mean like the heroes of January 6, 2021? Of course not.

I'm not aware of any non-citizens in that group but if so then yes.

Because you judge by who, not what.

As we've demonstrated thousands of times this is true of you who refuse to apply consistent standards, or really any standard, to yourself or your allies. As for me how is our government depriving them of any of their rights when they're in another country? Are we denying their right to peaceably petition their government? Are we denying their right to call us the Great Satan?

The rest show that you, like the leftists you hate, believe that rights are not inherent but rather something to be bestowed, and taken away, by government.

Of course this is not true at all. People retain their own rights where they are, the only "right" my comment rejects is the right to come here against our will. But as always you demonstrate you can't honestly analyze anything because your need to attack comes before any effort to understand reality or what anyone is saying.

tell us how Trump weaponizing government

First tell us how he is weaponizing government.

Fucking partisan moronic lying sack of shit.

This is the sarc we know, 2/3 into a fifth, fresh from beating his kids, and only interested in lashing out because he knows how worthless his life is.

[JohnZ]

The only ones who weaponized the government has been the democrats and their little komrades in the White House.
Merrick Garland, Mayorkas, Comey, Vicious attacks on free speech, endless attacks on Donald Trump, allowing our nation to be invaded by millions of third world invaders, some of whom are members of vicious gangs. Some of whom are spies for China. Some are obviously criminals.
The past four years were more like a George Orwell novel .

[DesigNate]

If we were fully no borders, just come and go as you please, yeah, that wouldn’t make a lot of sense, but since we don’t have that, I don’t understand why you think it unreasonable to request this of people that we grant a visa to.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

Every country in the world essentially retains the right to reject visitors based on any determination they choose to make. There is no right to stay just because at one time a visa was granted.

You are visiting as the guest of a country. They can revise that status as they see fit.

I have no issue with this.

[JFree]

Sufficient campaign donations. Also works to revoke naturalized citizenship. And paperwork re birthright citizenship.

[AT]

Answer: because we want to. For any reason we want, no matter how capricious.

[charliehall]

The Alien Enemies Act was one of the things that helped to destroy the Federalist Party. Hopefully it will do the same thing to Trump's Republican Party.

[Don't get eliminated(Lying Jeffy thinks about people having anal sex with their sisters)]

Haha!

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

That explains the poor polling.
Oh, wait that’s democrats that are polling poorly.

[charliehall]

In actual election polls, Democrats are polling 15 points better than last fall in special elections all over the US.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)]

Is that polling or is that ballet box stuffing?

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

How cute you truly believe special elections are warning signs.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Except Jefferson didn't actually get it repealed, did he?

Power corrupts. Presidents are loathe to surrender power. Film at 11.

[Iwanna Newname]

"... or any invasion or
predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the
United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States
shall make public proclamation of the event,..."

Trump has made said public proclamation! What part of the term "public proclamation" don't these judges understand. This 1798 law is still ion the books. It has never been ruled unconstitutional. It has been invoked by previous presidents. Congress has had 200+ years to repeal it and never did. So, it's only invalid if Trump uses it?

[windycityattorney]

You have to admit that the previous invocations of the act were when Congress actually declared war, correct? War of 1812, WW1, WW2? Does everybody agree on that? Its been previously used 3 times and each time it was tied directly to a Congressional declaration of war?

What could *possibly* be different about this invocation of the act?

[AT]

Let's ask the Republican Congress if they'd like to abrogate it in the face of it working so well. Go ahead and write up a law and get it on Donald's desk. Then see if you can supermajority his veto.

I'll wait.

[Number 2]

“The gang is not a foreign state and the gang's alleged crimes do not qualify as acts of war by a foreign state.”

Damon made this argument yesterday. But Trump‘s argument is that the Venezuelan government is using the gang as its agent for a predatory incursion into the country. I say that this is a viable legal theory. Whether Trump has the factual support to prove this allegation is a different matter.

[windycityattorney]

They have the evidence. You can't see it. Nor can they share that with the court. That information is a state secret.

Just like the braggart kid in school who came back from summer break to tell tall tales of their summer girlfriend. She was sooooo hot! You wouldn't know her. She's actually from Canada. But she is definitely real.

If Trump actually believed the bs proclamation he signed, Hegseth would have had a group chat with at least 2 journalists by now as the missiles were dropping on Caracas. Nobody believes this bullshit, even the people who signed it and wrote it. They don't care. It's a means to an end. When courts begin to inquire, they will argue the President's authority in this sphere is plenary and unquestionable. They will be wrong, but again, they don't care.

[AT]

Nobody believes this bullshit, even the people who signed it and wrote it. They don't care. It's a means to an end.

1) Language.

2) In principle, I agree with you on this point. In practicality, "ends justify the means" is the left-wing boot that's been on America's neck for decades. Only now that the tables have turned, and that boot is on the anti-American Left's neck instead, do you suddenly have a problem with it. Well, I don't really care, Margaret.

It's the Rocky vs Thunderlips moment:

American Right: "Hey let's get a polaroid when this is over."
American Left: *goes berserk*
American Right: "CUT MY GLOVES OFF!!!"

You're only upset because you're the ones now getting wailed on, choked out, and thrown out of the ring.

And, unlike Thunderlips, the American Right isn't as gracious as Rocky and believes you anymore when you say "that's the name of the game" and then agree to pose for a picture. They know you're just unhinged psychopaths at your core.

[JohnZ]

Whatever they are, they are now a proven criminal entity. everywhere they infest, crime goes up tenfold or worse. They commit crimes like a gang, they act like a gang, they have a hierarchy like a gang.
They are a gang.
The only place for them is CECOT.

[James K. Polk]

... Yet there is ... no "invasion or predatory incursion" by any "foreign state or government." The gang is not a foreign state and the gang's alleged crimes do not qualify as acts of war by a foreign state. There is zero textual support for Trump's actions.

This is nothing more than a loud assertion. Does the gang qualify as a "foreign state" for purposes of the AEA? This is untested. Is their presence or activity here a "predatory incursion"? I think the answer to that is "yes". Also, since Venezuela is a totalitarian Marxist nation, it is arguable that TdA is a Venezuelan government agent. They could not exist otherwise, and their criminal enterprise could not operate out of Venezuela without the support of the Venezuelan government. That's not zero textual support.

It is a stretch, and the AEA itself may be unconstitutional, but to say it has zero textual support is little more than whistling past the graveyard.

[AT]

Trump v. J.G.G. is also notable for what it did not say. First, the Court did not say whether or not Trump unlawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act in the first place in order to deport aliens who are alleged to be members of the street gang Tren de Aragua.

Why would they?

It wasn't a question that was asked of them. Almost certainly because any 1L student could plainly see that A) it's an authority that was explicitly given to the President by Congress (twice!); B) clearly allowed the President to do precisely what he did; and C) it's still good law.

"Whether or not Trump unlawfully invoked" it isn't even up for discussion. He absolutely had this legal authority and utilized it under its terms.

There is excellent reason to think that Trump did act unlawfully.

And yet, you instead provided a convoluted one that makes no sense and isn't even factually accurate. Why would you do that?

Second, the Supreme Court did not say whether or not any of the individuals challenging their removals even qualified as removable aliens in the first place under the Alien Enemies Act.

Because the AEA's ONLY qualification is that the President deem a non-naturalized citizen a threat (or even just a potential threat!) to national security or public safety.

Which, of course, every single criminal border jumper automatically is. Especially the ones in violent psychopathic gangs.

As Reason's Jacob Sullum has noted

Oh, that's never a good way to help your article. He is a known retard, Damon. Do a global search of Reason for "JSDR" or "JS:DR." Nobody listens to or respects ANYTHING he has to say. Ever.

I'm not saying it necessarily makes a citation to him wrong, just that you undermine ANY HOPE WHATSOEVER of your article being in any way persuasive to its reader by citing that retard.

In other words, the Supreme Court did not answer either of the two biggest questions raised by Trump's deportations.

In other words, you don't understand what happened here even slightly or why. NEITHER of your questions were PRESENTED to the court TO "answer." And if you expected the Supreme Court to take it up sua sponte, then you don't understand the Judiciary even slightly. (Sonia and Ketanji tried, and it was laughable at best for all its random and pointless rabbit holing.)

But the Court did make it clear that the judiciary can and should provide answers in appropriate cases going forward. "We have held," the Court's order stated, "that an individual subject to detention and removal under [the Alien Enemies Act] is entitled to 'judicial review'

Yea, well, good luck with that when they're held in jurisdictions that are friendly to American law (as opposed to forum-shopping at venues like the DCDC). Even that's kind of a win for Donnie T and the Deportators, because at least the scumbags are rounded up and in custody as opposed to roaming the American streets and engaging in mayhem and violence.

Make sure to save me a jar of your liberal tears when Texas (and Florida) courts are like, "We've reviewed your challenge and deny it. Enjoy your free trip to El Salvador. You'll see a lot of your friends there."

as well as whether he or she 'is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.'"

Per the AEA.

Such cases will now be filed according to the terms of Trump v. J.G.G. And those cases will soon be working their way toward the Supreme Court.

Oh, that's adorable. Absolutely precious. Maybe you should wish for a pony and for your parents to get back together while you're at it.

[Thought about __ all my life]

I've said the same thing all along.
We all have our faults but Roberts has several, any of which should haver kept him from his present position. Just days after defending Boasberg he has to vacate his ruling !!! Must be damn embarrassing.

[Incunabulum]

1. That is not really a loss. They can challenge *their deportation* - but not the EAA. It's now law that the President has the authority to do what he's been doing. Contra to Reason's assertions that he's been acting unconstitutionally.

2. This is not really a loss - challenges must be filed in the applicable district. No more judge shopping.

3. By not addressing the unlawfulness but deciding that due process is required to be allowed (note: no judge *has* to sign off on a deportation, only that judicial review is required if a deportee challenges their deportation) is a tacit admission that the EAA is being legally followed. Or else you're saying the legal challenges to the president's use of the EAA were filed by morons.

4. This is pretty standard. Courts at all levels address only the immediate issues needed to settle a specific case.

[Incunabulum]

Also, I really think Reason should leave the legal analysis to Volokh and company - they actually know what they're doing over there.

[JohnZ]

Members of TdA and MS-13 need immediate deportation directly to CECOT. End of argument.
The rest, illegal aliens, deported immediately if not sooner.
Illegal alien is an Illegal Alien. They are here illegally, costing the taxpayers billions along with the added joy of more crime, labeled cultural enrichment by idiot liberals.

[BioBehavioral_View]

Lawyers Are The Court

Nine lawyers in black costumes comprise SCOTUS. For the Chief Justice, Roberts, the highest priority is to promote and maintain the authority and acceptance of the Court. He now faces a conundrum created by President Trump; namely, Trump's policies versus the Constitution.

A majority of Americans are rejecting rule by the Washingtonian Establishment via the Administrative State. Mr. Trump personifies that rejection. Yet, some, if not most, of his policies and programs have no authority in the Constitution. Even so, if the Court blocks him, he has only one choice. Admit defeat and allow this declining nation on fire to burn to a cinder or declare martial law. What's a lawyer to do?