Supreme Court backs Trump in controversial deportations case

Always in His Presence · Apr 8, 2025

Supreme Court backs Trump in controversial deportations case

Promises made. Promises kept

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory to President Trump on Monday, allowing the administration to continue deporting what it says are Venezuelan gang members. The vote was 5-to-4, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals in dissent.

hedrick · Apr 8, 2025

Sort of. The court refused a class action approach, saying that the case needed to be heard in Texas. But they also said that people were entitled to notice and an opportunity for judicial review. That has not been happening, and in fact is the major concern of many of us.

Vambram · Apr 8, 2025

In an unsigned opinion Monday night, the court's conservative majority didn't rule on that question. But it gave the Trump administration all it needed to continue with the deportations, with one caveat. It said that from here on in, the alleged gang members need to be given notice of deportation, and the opportunity to contest the deportation.

The court, however, said there is only one way to do that. And that is by challenging their detentions on a case-by-case basis.

The initial lawsuit challenging the order, from the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward, had sought to block use of the Alien Enemies Act through a "class action," in which a handful of people can sue on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow deportations under Alien Enemies Act
But the court said that the men should have brought their challenges through individual "habeas petitions."

Technically habeas corpus means "produce the body." In practice it means that an imprisoned individual has the right to challenge his detention or deportation, but only for himself, and only, the court said, in the places where deportees were being detained. In this case, the named plaintiffs were being held in Texas, a state, where, as the dissenters observed, judges are not likely to be sympathetic.

I think that this is a good ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Always in His Presence · Apr 8, 2025

absolutely

Always in His Presence · Apr 9, 2025

It's the precursor to all the lower courts trying to stop the agenda.

rjs330 · Apr 10, 2025

I support this ruling. I'm interested to see if this actually has any effect on the deportations of these violent gang members. Are we sure it's a good idea to give these people notice? They have gangs all over the US. Individual members could easily be sent to other states making it that much harder to round them up. I would still prefer NO notice. Round them up then go through the process of determining if they need to go. I dont think ICE should have to chase these people around the country.

I might be wrong. It remains to be seen.

rjs330 · Apr 10, 2025

Okay after further research on this case I'm even more okay with it. It sounds like these guys can be rounded up and then if they ask for review they can get one in front of immigration court. Which is far different than a criminal court. The due process here isn't the same. This ruling also ends the Boesburg injunction and ends his whole contempt case. It also upholds the administrations use of the invasion act at this point. It doesn't mean that the use won't be overturned at a later date, but it's there for now. So this is a big win. Mostly status quo is maintained and deportations will move forward with the exception of the use of the immigration courts IF the deportee asks for it. I'm satisfied.

Yarddog · Apr 10, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Supreme Court backs Trump in controversial deportations case

Promises made. Promises kept

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory to President Trump on Monday, allowing the administration to continue deporting what it says are Venezuelan gang members. The vote was 5-to-4, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals in dissent.

The court didn't completely back Trump. It said that he must give them due process, according to your article. The ACLU called it a victory.

rjs330 · Apr 10, 2025

Yarddog said:
The court didn't completely back Trump. It said that he must give them due process, according to your article. The ACLU called it a victory.

I think it was a victory for both sides. A greater victory for Trump with a small win for the ACLU. Which i think most are satisfied with.

Yarddog · Apr 10, 2025

rjs330 said:
I think it was a victory for both sides. A greater victory for Trump with a small win for the ACLU. Which i think most are satisfied with.

I'm not sure which was the greater win. The court basically said, "You can use the immigration bill to deport criminals but you must give them due process". That is how it was supposed to work.

Now, is he going to put the immigration judges that DOGE cut back on the bench or is he going to tie up the courts with endless law suits?

The immigration bill that he wanted killed would have solved this last year.

RileyG · Apr 10, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Supreme Court backs Trump in controversial deportations case

Promises made. Promises kept

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory to President Trump on Monday, allowing the administration to continue deporting what it says are Venezuelan gang members. The vote was 5-to-4, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals in dissent.

Thanks be to God! Thankful for my president! What a wonderful man he is! :prayer:

rjs330 · Apr 11, 2025

Yarddog said:
I'm not sure which was the greater win. The court basically said, "You can use the immigration bill to deport criminals but you must give them due process". That is how it was supposed to work.

Now, is he going to put the immigration judges that DOGE cut back on the bench or is he going to tie up the courts with endless law suits?

The immigration bill that he wanted killed would have solved this last year.

One of the pieces of it was to support the admins use of the law AND that the judge was out ot his jurisdiction and didn't have the authority. So that's what I consider the wins.

Yarddog · Apr 11, 2025

rjs330 said:
One of the pieces of it was to support the admins use of the law AND that the judge was out ot his jurisdiction and didn't have the authority. So that's what I consider the wins.

Incorrect, they said nothing against the Judge. He exercised his authority as a federal judge. Trump was the one that acted outside his authority. You cannot deport people without giving them due process.

rjs330 · Apr 11, 2025

Yarddog said:
Incorrect, they said nothing against the Judge. He exercised his authority as a federal judge. Trump was the one that acted outside his authority. You cannot deport people without giving them due process.

Nope,
"In ending Boasberg's temporary restraining orders barring such deportations issued on March 15 and March 28 and lasting two weeks apiece, the Supreme Court said detainees should have contested their deportations in Texas, where they were confined, rather than in Washington."

That's indicating the judge had no jurisdiction. It should have been filed in Texas. This actually may have more ramifications in the future to limit some judge shopping. So we'll see.

Say it aint so · Apr 12, 2025

rjs330 said:
Nope,
"In ending Boasberg's temporary restraining orders barring such deportations issued on March 15 and March 28 and lasting two weeks apiece, the Supreme Court said detainees should have contested their deportations in Texas, where they were confined, rather than in Washington."

That's indicating the judge had no jurisdiction. It should have been filed in Texas. This actually may have more ramifications in the future to limit some judge shopping. So we'll see.

What that blurb you quotes means is the lawyers petitioning to the court the cases of the unlawful deportations, must be brought in Texas.
The court also is saying, as the poster you responded to noted, is Trump did not provide them due process and ruled they most provide them that process prior to deportation.

rjs330 · Apr 12, 2025

Say it aint so said:
What that blurb you quotes means is the lawyers petitioning to the court the cases of the unlawful deportations, must be brought in Texas.
The court also is saying, as the poster you responded to noted, is Trump did not provide them due process and ruled they most provide them that process prior to deportation.

I know what it means. I said so in the post. What you wrote doesn't change a thing I said.

Always in His Presence · Apr 14, 2025

still a win

Say it aint so · Apr 14, 2025

""In an unsigned opinion Monday night, the court's conservative majority didn't rule on that question (1798 Alien Enemies Act). But it gave the Trump administration all it needed to continue with the deportations, with one caveat.""

That one caveat negates what Trump et al were doing in deportations without any chance of defense. The whole point of using the act was to not provide due process and deport them straight way. Moreover, what the court denied the ACLU was it's use of class action. Now those individuals will have to see their day in court individually. Something that pretty much every president has done without the need to invoke an enemies act. If the court had ruled before the individual the DOJ admits they wrongly deported, he would still be here.

Aryeh Jay · Apr 14, 2025

Wouldn't it be easier if the police just says that the people being arrested went for a gun and were neutralized? I mean the police will investigate the police and find no wrong doing. Saves money with no trial or deportation.

DaisyDay · Apr 14, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
It's the precursor to all the lower courts trying to stop the agenda.

The agenda being due process and civil rights.

Supreme Court backs Trump in controversial deportations case

Jesus is the only Way