The Supreme Court’s midnight order halting deportations of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang ties has sparked a fiery dissent from Justice Samuel Alito.
Breitbart reported that the decision paused the Trump administration’s plan to remove these migrants under a centuries-old law, prompting Alito to criticize the Court’s hasty action. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Alito’s dissent underscores concerns about judicial overreach and due process.
The Trump administration aimed to deport Venezuelan migrants detained in Texas, accusing them of ties to the notorious and brutally violent Tren de Aragua gang.
This plan relied on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked statute. The administration issued notices labeling illegal immigrants with gang ties as “alien enemies” subject to immediate removal.
These notices, titled “Notice and Warrant of Apprehension and Removal,” explicitly stated the deportations were not under standard immigration laws. The documents identified the migrants as gang members, justifying their swift expulsion.
The American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to represent the detained migrants. ACLU attorneys argued that deporting these individuals to El Salvador’s prisons without due process violated their rights. They sought to preserve the status quo while legal proceedings unfolded.
The ACLU’s legal battle began in Abilene, Texas, at the Federal District Court. Attorneys filed an emergency request, claiming deportation notices were already being distributed at the Bluebonnet Detention Center. They asked Judge James Wesley Hendrix for an immediate protective order.
Judge Hendrix, however, did not act swiftly and ultimately denied the ACLU’s request. Undeterred, the ACLU escalated the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. Within hours, they filed similar emergency challenges across multiple courts.
The ACLU’s efforts culminated in an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. Just after midnight, the Court issued a 5-4 order using the All Writs Act, halting the deportations. The ruling directed the Trump administration to refrain from removing the detained migrants.
This decision lifted a prior block by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who had temporarily prevented the deportations.
The ACLU had previously sought a restraining order from Boasberg, requesting 30 days’ notice before any deportations. The Supreme Court’s order effectively reinstated protections for the migrants.
Justice Alito, in a five-page dissent, lambasted the Court’s rapid intervention. He argued the order was issued without clear jurisdiction and bypassed lower courts. Alito emphasized that the All Writs Act does not grant independent authority for such actions.
Alito, joined by Thomas, described the Court’s action as “unprecedented emergency relief.” He criticized the timing, noting the order came within eight hours of the ACLU’s application. The dissent highlighted that the Fifth Circuit was poised to rule, yet the Court refused to wait.
“The Court issued legally questionable relief,” Alito wrote, pointing to procedural irregularities. He questioned whether the ACLU had followed proper protocol by seeking district court relief first. The dissent underscored the lack of input from the Trump administration before the ruling.
Alito further argued that the Court’s midnight timing was unnecessary. He noted the lack of compelling evidence justifying such urgency. The dissent painted the decision as a rushed overstep, undermining judicial restraint.
The Supreme Court’s order has temporarily stalled the Trump administration’s deportation plans. The migrants, held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center, remain in limbo as legal battles continue. The ruling highlights tensions between national security and individual rights.