The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.
The dissent’s point is disingenuous because the majority held that the proper vehicle for challenging the detention is a habeas petition, and that detainees must have the opportunity to file one:
> Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)).
> More specifically, in this context, 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.
>> The implication of the Government’s position is
> The dissent’s point is disingenuous
Might you be confusing the government's position with the majority's opinion? The sentence quoted above from the dissent is saying that the government's position has {bad implication}, not that the majority's opinion has {bad implication}.
It’s important to remember that the “deportations” being discussed here are one way tickets to a foreign slave camp, from which few inmates emerge and which is effectively walled off from the Salvadoran justice system.
Potential life sentences, in other words. For people who are largely not criminals.
Venezuelans in the United States labeled by President Donald Trump as “alien enemies” must be given a chance to challenge their deportations before being expelled from the country, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.
Courts in Texas may not be especially receptive to such petitions. Any appeals will be heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s most conservative federal appeals court.
Still, the Supreme Court’s ruling appears to deal a setback to Trump’s attempt to swiftly deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, under powers used only three prior times in U.S. history, most recently in World War II.
Nevertheless, Trump declared victory Monday.
Supreme Court says Venezuelans Trump wants to deport must be able to ‘actually seek’ relief before being deported
Honestly, the biggest victory for the govt here is probably being allowed to invoke the act when the nation is clearly not at war. The act has previously only been invoked in war time.
To allow the govt to claim that we are at war based on assertions of 'invasion' by illegal aliens is extremely dangerous.
The idea of the govt being able to invoke wartime powers when we are clearly not at war should be something that troubles people regardless of political affiliation. Wartime powers are by definition extraordinary and are designed to give the president vast powers necessary to deal with an existential threat to the nation. There is no feasible way to cut those back without seriously hamstringing us in case of an actual war on our borders.
However the implicit contract is that governments use those powers only in cases of actual war and existential threats. By allowing the govt to move ahead in this case, we have significantly expanded the supremacy of the executive over the other branches.
Many democracies have not been able to come back from this(at least not very easily). By nature, politicians(regardless of party) will never willingly relinquish power. It's a given that the next president whether Democrat or Republican will keep this power and potentially use it against political enemies.
The court doesn’t seem to have reached any conclusion about the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act in this way. They just said the process for challenging the AEA must be done through a habeas petition in district where they are held, not in a class action suit in court in D.C.
The dissent is pointing out that the administration is deliberately moving these people to districts where they are likely to get favorable rulings quickly, and they have demonstrated willingness to perform these actions in spite of contrary rulings from other courts, rather than respecting the ruling and arguing about jurisdiction.
Interesting that Barrett concurred with the dissent on whether the petitioners should be allowed to bring their habeas petition in the District Court of D.C.
It's interesting that Amy Coney Barrett sided with the dissent and not Roberts. The big ruling will be on returning the Maryland man who was accidentally deported to an El Salvadoran prison. I can't imagine them siding with Trump's lawyers on that, they're blatantly in the wrong and have been told so by 4 judges now. That would be extremely worrying if SCOTUS upheld his deportation.
Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals are part of the Executive Branch. The court has held that executive actions must be subject to review by an Article III court.
That's incorrect. Lots of immigration decisions are judicially unreviewable, such as visa revocations: https://www.boundless.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-courts-ca.... The Supreme Court has also never held that non-citizens have a right to an Article III judicial determination to challenge deportation. The current immigration laws provide for many circumstances where deportation is judicially unreviewable, and indeed does not even require a determination by an administrative immigration judge: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedite...
I'm aware an immigration judge in 2019 withheld his removal and there was an unreliable witnesses claiming they heard him say he had connections, but that was in NY, not Maryland where Abrego Garcia lives. I'm also aware the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.
Why they won't just bring him back is disturbing. He has a wife and 3 children who are all US citizens. Nobody should be defending this.
> I'm aware an immigration judge in 2019 withheld his removal and there was an unreliable witnesses claiming they heard him say he had connections, but that was in NY, not Maryland where Abrego Garcia lives.
Most of that is false, and you should look at what media you've confused that has given you that false impression. In 2019, an immigration judge determined that Garcia was deportable because of his ties to MS-13 and issued a deportation order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/2025.... The relevant orders of the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals are at appendix pages 1a-18a. The most relevant portion is 4a through 5a, where the Board of Immigration appeals affirms the immigration judge's determination that Garcia "is a verified member of MS-13."
> I'm also aware the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.
Incorrect. It is undisputed that, in 2019, the immigration judge issued a removal order. The only caveat was that Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador, his home country. From appendix page 46a (Garcia's brief in the current district court proceedings):
> Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia ("Mr. Abrego Garcia") won an order from an immigration judge ("IJ") prohibiting his removal to El Salvador, after he established it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted in that country on account of a statutorily protected ground. The government could have chosen to appeal that order, but did not. The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth, but did not.
"The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie,” she wrote, “and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived.” - Judge Xinis
“The United States government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” wrote Judge Stephanie D. Thacker, who was appointed by Mr. Obama. “The government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”
It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of the immigration judge’s determination that Garcia was a member of MS13, because that determination was affirmed by the BIA and Garcia did not appeal. Garcia’s lawyers concede that Garcia is an illegal immigrant and the government could have deported him anywhere except El Salvador: “The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth…”
We live in interesting times, and no one can predict almost anything about the future. But we can all take comfort in the fact that no matter what cruel, ridiculous, destructive policy Trump is pursuing in six months, some will be right here debasing themselves with a full-throated defense of it.
You said the Garcia situation as a big deal, and I said it was not because he was properly deported for being associated with MS13. The mistake by the administration was only with respect to where he was deported.
The immigration judge’s decision that he was deportable for being associated with MS13 isn’t up for debate at this point. But it’s highly relevant to show the deportation was proper.
The judges didn’t rule otherwise. They had no reason to do so, because Garcia’s filing in the district court conceded he was deportable. “The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth.”
Note: it looks like you’re quoting from news articles describing the judicial decisions, instead of reading the decisions themselves. That’s like quoting from news articles about software code. They’re not reliable sources.
What is false specifically? The fact that an immigration judge determined Garcia was deportable does not contradict the fact that the same order was withheld later on, much as you try to imply it.
>> the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.
> Incorrect.
Actually you are incorrect, quoting from [0]: "the Government conceded during the district court hearing, “The facts -- we concede the facts. This person should -- the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.”"
“Withheld” has a specific meaning in this context. As explained in the subsequent order (appendix page 11a of the material I linked above: “Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country rather than the right to remain in the U.S.”
Garcia was deportable. He was only not deportable to El Salvador.
First of all, thank you for conceding my second point, that you were mistaken when you said "Incorrect."
> “Withheld” has a specific meaning in this context
okay, but the person you replied to didn't say "Garcia could not be deported to Switzerland, because the judge withheld the order." He just said the judge withheld the order, which is correct. And then you responded and said it was wrong.
Actually, no one is talking about the legal basis for deporting Garcia to Switzerland or Djibouti, except you, because he wasn't deported to Switzerland or Djibouti but to El Salvador.
> Why they won't just bring him back is disturbing. He has a wife and 3 children who are all US citizens. Nobody should be defending this.
Without opining on whether he should be brought back: it seems kind of a slippery slope (legally speaking) to suggest that someone should be brought back because of their family, no? I'm not sure I'd want courts to decide that people should also be subject to deportation or other punishments because of their families.
He hasn't been charged with any crime though. If he was actually part of a dangerous gang taking orders from the Venezuelan government against the US, he should have been arrested and charged before this. That he has a family of citizens should keep him in the country. It's cruelty to split up families with deportation.
The law doesn’t require being charged with or convicted of a crime for deportation. Garcia is deportable simply for being an illegal alien. The connection to MS13 is simply about prioritizing who gets deported first. Thus it makes sense that it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.
> That he has a family of citizens should keep him in the country. It's cruelty to split up families with deportation.
That’s not the law, and would create a tremendous moral hazard if it were the law. It’s cruel to Americans to import Latin America’s gang problems. We got the Italian mafia along with mass Italian immigration, and it took decades to clean it up. The Italian mob was doing hits in nice midtown manhattan restaurants until the 1980s until we developed RICO theories to put everyone in prison.
The actual topography here, rather than any hypothetical buttered slope, is a man was deported in defiance of pre existing court orders that he not be deported.
Is it correct that you are in favour of courts being involved in deportation decisions and those decisions being respected and paid heed to?
> The actual topography here, rather than any hypothetical buttered slope, is a man was deported without in defiance of pre existing court orders that he not be deported.
False. Garcia was concededly subject to deportation except to El Salvador. And that condition prohibiting removal to El Salvador was not issued by a "court," but rather by an immigration judge (executive branch employee).
From Sotomayor’s dissent:
The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.
The dissent’s point is disingenuous because the majority held that the proper vehicle for challenging the detention is a habeas petition, and that detainees must have the opportunity to file one:
> Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)).
> More specifically, in this context, 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.
>> The implication of the Government’s position is
> The dissent’s point is disingenuous
Might you be confusing the government's position with the majority's opinion? The sentence quoted above from the dissent is saying that the government's position has {bad implication}, not that the majority's opinion has {bad implication}.
It’s important to remember that the “deportations” being discussed here are one way tickets to a foreign slave camp, from which few inmates emerge and which is effectively walled off from the Salvadoran justice system.
Potential life sentences, in other words. For people who are largely not criminals.
I find a different framing more appropriate:
Supreme Court Hides Behind Ridiculous Procedural Argument To Allow Human Trafficking To Continue [1]
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/08/supreme-court-hides-behi...
It's a middling result:
Supreme Court says Venezuelans Trump wants to deport must be able to ‘actually seek’ relief before being deported~ https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/supreme-court-depor...
Honestly, the biggest victory for the govt here is probably being allowed to invoke the act when the nation is clearly not at war. The act has previously only been invoked in war time.
To allow the govt to claim that we are at war based on assertions of 'invasion' by illegal aliens is extremely dangerous.
The idea of the govt being able to invoke wartime powers when we are clearly not at war should be something that troubles people regardless of political affiliation. Wartime powers are by definition extraordinary and are designed to give the president vast powers necessary to deal with an existential threat to the nation. There is no feasible way to cut those back without seriously hamstringing us in case of an actual war on our borders.
However the implicit contract is that governments use those powers only in cases of actual war and existential threats. By allowing the govt to move ahead in this case, we have significantly expanded the supremacy of the executive over the other branches.
Many democracies have not been able to come back from this(at least not very easily). By nature, politicians(regardless of party) will never willingly relinquish power. It's a given that the next president whether Democrat or Republican will keep this power and potentially use it against political enemies.
I genuinely do not know where we go from here.
The court doesn’t seem to have reached any conclusion about the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act in this way. They just said the process for challenging the AEA must be done through a habeas petition in district where they are held, not in a class action suit in court in D.C.
The dissent is pointing out that the administration is deliberately moving these people to districts where they are likely to get favorable rulings quickly, and they have demonstrated willingness to perform these actions in spite of contrary rulings from other courts, rather than respecting the ruling and arguing about jurisdiction.
it seems like there are lots of national emergencies by presidents of all parties, and lots of them deal with criminal organizations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...
is this that different?
The actual opinion (why are they so reluctant to link it?) is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
Interesting that Barrett concurred with the dissent on whether the petitioners should be allowed to bring their habeas petition in the District Court of D.C.
Justice Roberts empowering Trump in order to avoid seeing what would happen if the administration got held in contempt.
It's interesting that Amy Coney Barrett sided with the dissent and not Roberts. The big ruling will be on returning the Maryland man who was accidentally deported to an El Salvadoran prison. I can't imagine them siding with Trump's lawyers on that, they're blatantly in the wrong and have been told so by 4 judges now. That would be extremely worrying if SCOTUS upheld his deportation.
Are you aware that an immigration judge found the man deportable for connections to MS13 and the Board of Immigration appeals affirmed?
Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals are part of the Executive Branch. The court has held that executive actions must be subject to review by an Article III court.
That's incorrect. Lots of immigration decisions are judicially unreviewable, such as visa revocations: https://www.boundless.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-courts-ca.... The Supreme Court has also never held that non-citizens have a right to an Article III judicial determination to challenge deportation. The current immigration laws provide for many circumstances where deportation is judicially unreviewable, and indeed does not even require a determination by an administrative immigration judge: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedite...
I'm aware an immigration judge in 2019 withheld his removal and there was an unreliable witnesses claiming they heard him say he had connections, but that was in NY, not Maryland where Abrego Garcia lives. I'm also aware the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.
Why they won't just bring him back is disturbing. He has a wife and 3 children who are all US citizens. Nobody should be defending this.
> I'm aware an immigration judge in 2019 withheld his removal and there was an unreliable witnesses claiming they heard him say he had connections, but that was in NY, not Maryland where Abrego Garcia lives.
Most of that is false, and you should look at what media you've confused that has given you that false impression. In 2019, an immigration judge determined that Garcia was deportable because of his ties to MS-13 and issued a deportation order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/2025.... The relevant orders of the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals are at appendix pages 1a-18a. The most relevant portion is 4a through 5a, where the Board of Immigration appeals affirms the immigration judge's determination that Garcia "is a verified member of MS-13."
> I'm also aware the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.
Incorrect. It is undisputed that, in 2019, the immigration judge issued a removal order. The only caveat was that Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador, his home country. From appendix page 46a (Garcia's brief in the current district court proceedings):
> Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia ("Mr. Abrego Garcia") won an order from an immigration judge ("IJ") prohibiting his removal to El Salvador, after he established it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted in that country on account of a statutorily protected ground. The government could have chosen to appeal that order, but did not. The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth, but did not.
"The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie,” she wrote, “and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived.” - Judge Xinis
“The United States government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” wrote Judge Stephanie D. Thacker, who was appointed by Mr. Obama. “The government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”
It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of the immigration judge’s determination that Garcia was a member of MS13, because that determination was affirmed by the BIA and Garcia did not appeal. Garcia’s lawyers concede that Garcia is an illegal immigrant and the government could have deported him anywhere except El Salvador: “The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth…”
Then why did you begin with him being deportable due to association with MS13 in your first comment?
Because he is a partisan. I’ve literally never once seen this account argue a single political point in good faith.
We live in interesting times, and no one can predict almost anything about the future. But we can all take comfort in the fact that no matter what cruel, ridiculous, destructive policy Trump is pursuing in six months, some will be right here debasing themselves with a full-throated defense of it.
You said the Garcia situation as a big deal, and I said it was not because he was properly deported for being associated with MS13. The mistake by the administration was only with respect to where he was deported.
The immigration judge’s decision that he was deportable for being associated with MS13 isn’t up for debate at this point. But it’s highly relevant to show the deportation was proper.
I quoted two judges who ruled otherwise in the past couple days.
The judges didn’t rule otherwise. They had no reason to do so, because Garcia’s filing in the district court conceded he was deportable. “The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth.”
Note: it looks like you’re quoting from news articles describing the judicial decisions, instead of reading the decisions themselves. That’s like quoting from news articles about software code. They’re not reliable sources.
> Most of that is false
What is false specifically? The fact that an immigration judge determined Garcia was deportable does not contradict the fact that the same order was withheld later on, much as you try to imply it.
>> the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.
> Incorrect.
Actually you are incorrect, quoting from [0]: "the Government conceded during the district court hearing, “The facts -- we concede the facts. This person should -- the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.”"
[0] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25881148/ca4-ag.pdf
“Withheld” has a specific meaning in this context. As explained in the subsequent order (appendix page 11a of the material I linked above: “Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country rather than the right to remain in the U.S.”
Garcia was deportable. He was only not deportable to El Salvador.
First of all, thank you for conceding my second point, that you were mistaken when you said "Incorrect."
> “Withheld” has a specific meaning in this context
okay, but the person you replied to didn't say "Garcia could not be deported to Switzerland, because the judge withheld the order." He just said the judge withheld the order, which is correct. And then you responded and said it was wrong.
Actually, no one is talking about the legal basis for deporting Garcia to Switzerland or Djibouti, except you, because he wasn't deported to Switzerland or Djibouti but to El Salvador.
> Why they won't just bring him back is disturbing. He has a wife and 3 children who are all US citizens. Nobody should be defending this.
Without opining on whether he should be brought back: it seems kind of a slippery slope (legally speaking) to suggest that someone should be brought back because of their family, no? I'm not sure I'd want courts to decide that people should also be subject to deportation or other punishments because of their families.
He hasn't been charged with any crime though. If he was actually part of a dangerous gang taking orders from the Venezuelan government against the US, he should have been arrested and charged before this. That he has a family of citizens should keep him in the country. It's cruelty to split up families with deportation.
> He hasn't been charged with any crime though.
The law doesn’t require being charged with or convicted of a crime for deportation. Garcia is deportable simply for being an illegal alien. The connection to MS13 is simply about prioritizing who gets deported first. Thus it makes sense that it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.
> That he has a family of citizens should keep him in the country. It's cruelty to split up families with deportation.
That’s not the law, and would create a tremendous moral hazard if it were the law. It’s cruel to Americans to import Latin America’s gang problems. We got the Italian mafia along with mass Italian immigration, and it took decades to clean it up. The Italian mob was doing hits in nice midtown manhattan restaurants until the 1980s until we developed RICO theories to put everyone in prison.
The actual topography here, rather than any hypothetical buttered slope, is a man was deported in defiance of pre existing court orders that he not be deported.
Is it correct that you are in favour of courts being involved in deportation decisions and those decisions being respected and paid heed to?
> The actual topography here, rather than any hypothetical buttered slope, is a man was deported without in defiance of pre existing court orders that he not be deported.
False. Garcia was concededly subject to deportation except to El Salvador. And that condition prohibiting removal to El Salvador was not issued by a "court," but rather by an immigration judge (executive branch employee).
Even the government admitted it was an administrative error.
Was that because they were in a rush to ignore a judge's order temporarily halting the deportations?