DOJ asked for a stay, the DC circuit put in a administrative stay on its own. Which is a stay while they consider the stay.

Quote:

---

This is, or was true, but I am not real sure what the justices now want to consider

---

This is not correct. There has always been some form of review. The Court just said last week they were entitled to notice and a chance to be heard.

AARP (not the old people, but oddly that's the initials of this guy) claims he hasn't been given that opportunity.

So my guess is the question will be on what kind of notice is required. It won't be much

The SCOTUS jumps in after midnight to stop deportations from Texas. Alito and Thomas dissent.

🚨BREAKING: Like a thief in the night.

The US Supreme Court just blocked President Trump from Deporting illegals under the Alien Enemies Act.

Thomas & Alito dissented.

They literally just did this after midnight. This is insane. pic.twitter.com/XeE9QJ99KP

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) April 19, 2025

Good

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

This is, or was true, but I am not real sure what the justices now want to consider

---

This is not correct. There has always been some form of review. The Court just said last week they were entitled to notice and a chance to be heard.

AARP (not the old people, but oddly that's the initials of this guy) claims he hasn't been given that opportunity.

So my guess is the question will be on what kind of notice is required. It won't be much

---

Well, I hope you are right. Habeas reviews are historically extremely…truncated/limited. I was curious about the initials but too lazy to look further. Thx, but I am still suspicious it is going to be a more 'left' and intrusive ruling/set of issues based on Thomas/Alito dissenting and then (later today?) publishing why. Again, I hope you are right and I am wrong on this.

Apparently, some of their lawyers claimed the notices provided them were in English only, it could be as simple as ensuring a translation is provided. I put a longer post in the other thread on that stuff.

It will be a temporary until the administration and the lower court hammer out how long the deported get to prove they are not terrorists, basically Due Process. The big question is will the Administration adhere to the ruling?

Burpelson said:

---

It will be a temporary until the administration and the lower court hammer out how long the deported get to prove they are not terrorists, basically Due Process. The big question is will the Administration adhere to the ruling?

---

That is the big question. They better or our country will continue to crumble.

The administration has been abiding by all court injunctions, TROs etc. So I don't know why you would think otherwise.

What "further notice" do we expect, and what will it be based on?

Ignore. Deport them anyway. If they can waltz right in they can be thrown right out.

Burpelson said:

---

It will be a temporary until the administration and the lower court hammer out how long the deported get to prove they are not terrorists, basically Due Process. The big question is will the Administration adhere to the ruling?

---

Why is that a question? The Trump Admin has been adhering to all court rulings.

Burpelson said:

---

It will be a temporary until the administration and the lower court hammer out how long the deported get to prove they are not terrorists, basically Due Process. The big question is will the Administration adhere to the ruling?

---

Even if they somehow prove it they will still be deported

I'm ok with this. Take everyone that's arrested for being here illegally and drop them off at the house of scotus members who voted for this and dems in congress.

45-70Ag said:

---

I'm ok with this. Take everyone that's arrested for being here illegally and drop them off at the house of scotus members who voted for this and dems in congress.

---

Gitmo for due processing.

The most logical way that I see for SCOTUS to get themselves out of this mess is to just reverse all earlier decisions under the AEA and declare the AEA is unconstitutional or parts of it are.

I am not advocating for that at all but all of this twisting themselves into a legal pretzel shows they are at a loss on how to approach these cases. Not a damn clue.

aggiehawg said:

---

The most logical way that I see for SCOTUS to get themselves out of this mess is to just reverse all earlier decisions under the AEA and declare the AEA is unconstitutional or parts of it are.

---

No, 100 percent disagree, the most logical and likely way they can do it is to now remove the stay since the 5th circuit has acted and the SG has responded appropriately. The panic about the ACLU filing in 94 districts over a holiday weekend has passed, and all that the gov't needs to do is continue to provide the notice SCOTUS has said they should such that if the soon-to-be-deported TdA members have time to file Habeas if they want to.

This was threatening to cause chaos over a religious holiday weekend throughout the court system, and ACLU got their stay as gov't threatened to fly some out on a Saturday but I think the prudent action is to…walk it back now.

4/4 Solicitor General's response to SCOTUS is next & will likely say "no jurisdiction to issue stay where no class certification & Plaintiffs have pending amended class certification complaint & d.ct. is prepared to address one Plaintiff's present motion to them...as is proper.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 19, 2025

I didn't say the Admin was about to do anything illegal -- in fact, I think the Admin has given notice as required, many individuals subject to the notice have filed habeas petitions, and the Administration has stated those individuals will not be deported while their petitions… https://t.co/naePhFnOsH

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 20, 2025

SG's response:

Didn't take long for SG John Sauer to weigh in.
Link: https://t.co/zGwfOTrEuP pic.twitter.com/QU7VkERd37

— 🎗️Cajun Joey 🇺🇸🦅 (@JoeyC39873397) April 20, 2025

Roberts of all of them should be the least motivated to make this double-jump case a bigger fiasco this weekend where they don't have a class, no DC/Appellate ruling at issue, and an opinion from just a few weeks ago from SCOTUS that AEA is just Habeas for review.

The ACLU only gave the trial court 42 minutes before filing with SCOTUS a for an uncertified class they don't even represent! It's insane, and only the inept estrogen squad of justices would consider it.

Josh Blackmon has a great piece out with Alito's dissent now (released at midnight).

Quote:

---

The seventh bullet points out an obvious argument: the Court has never held that habeas can be used to certify a class, and the District Court never certified a class. The Supreme Court cannot exercise Rule 23 powers on the fly.

Quote:

---

Although the Court provided class-wide relief, the District Court never certified a class, and this Court has never held that class relief may be sought in a habeas proceeding.

---

Justice Alito issues a challenge to his fellow members: I couldn't join this opinion, so why did you?

Quote:

---

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. 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.

---

The conclusion is a shot at J. Harvie Wilkinson:

Quote:

---

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., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures.

---

Amen. The obligation cannot only be on Trump; the Court must obey the law as well. The more Chief Justice Roberts issues decisions like this, the more his precious "legitimacy" withers. I made a similar point here:

Quote:

---

In a stress test, the Justices of the Supreme Court failed. In the same breath that Judges like J. Harvie Wilkinson wax poetic about the executive branch behaving lawlessly, the highest court in the land does no better.

---

Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are national treasures.

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did not join this dissent. I see a redux of the tax return cases, where the clearly agreed with the dissenters but could not be seen ruling for Trump. As for Justice Barrett, I think we can finally bury the "process formalism" defense. There are so many procedural reasons why she should have dissented here. But she did not, without any explanation. We can't read an opinion that does not exist; much like the Supreme Court cannot review a decision that does not exist.

---

It’s as if most of them were too busy, or asleep, and their liberal ABA/ACLU friendly law clerks were wreaking havoc against the Presidency. And the Justices gave them power of attorney privileges to file the order. America be damned.

— Cheryl M (@Vintage56inVA) April 20, 2025

Exactly right.

This country is toast.

4/4 Solicitor General's response to SCOTUS is next & will likely say "no jurisdiction to issue stay where no class certification & Plaintiffs have pending amended class certification complaint & d.ct. is prepared to address one Plaintiff's present motion to them...as is proper.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 19, 2025

Driving me nuts over this class action crappola. Zero basis for pretending there has been a sufficient showing in any court hearing for certification. Just clown world made up law.

aggiehawg said:

---

The most logical way that I see for SCOTUS to get themselves out of this mess is to just reverse all earlier decisions under the AEA and declare the AEA is unconstitutional or parts of it are.

I am not advocating for that at all but all of this twisting themselves into a legal pretzel shows they are at a loss on how to approach these cases. Not a damn clue.

---

Could it be that their approach is unconventional because of the new/unconventional ways Trump is trying to use the law?

I'd imagine if this becomes common with this and future administrations, they'll be more equipped to handle these situations better.

No

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

The most logical way that I see for SCOTUS to get themselves out of this mess is to just reverse all earlier decisions under the AEA and declare the AEA is unconstitutional or parts of it are.

I am not advocating for that at all but all of this twisting themselves into a legal pretzel shows they are at a loss on how to approach these cases. Not a damn clue.

---

Could it be that their approach is unconventional because of the new/unconventional ways Trump is trying to use the law?

I'd imagine if this becomes common with this and future administrations, they'll be more equipped to handle these situations better.

---

Actually no. There is precedent for how Trump is using that law. Yes, it is old law but it is still there. My original point was that SCOTUS is flailing, doing knee jerk reactions without providing any real clearly stated guidance. The old adage is that nature abhors a vacuum and that applies here.

When SCOTUS dithers, it encourages a plethora of individual interpretations, creating more problems not only for themselves but the whole country. And this Court has proven itself so feckless that I wouldn't be surprised if they (enough of them) come to the point of doing the ultimate punt on first down and just get rid of the ball on the AEA.

Again, not advocating they do so but I have lost faith in this Court.

Me too. Bad for our country.

Anybody that's spent any length of time south of the border NOT in vacation settings knows you don't want that way of life migrating here. You gain a very real appreciation for the "cleanliness" of America once you've spent time in poverty and industrial settings in these places, not just overly friendly resorts catering to your every need.

aggiehawg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

The most logical way that I see for SCOTUS to get themselves out of this mess is to just reverse all earlier decisions under the AEA and declare the AEA is unconstitutional or parts of it are.

I am not advocating for that at all but all of this twisting themselves into a legal pretzel shows they are at a loss on how to approach these cases. Not a damn clue.

---

Could it be that their approach is unconventional because of the new/unconventional ways Trump is trying to use the law?

I'd imagine if this becomes common with this and future administrations, they'll be more equipped to handle these situations better.

---

Actually no. There is precedent for how Trump is using that law. Yes, it is old law but it is still there. My original point was that SCOTUS is flailing, doing knee jerk reactions without providing any real clearly stated guidance. The old adage is that nature abhors a vacuum and that applies here.

When SCOTUS dithers, it encourages a plethora of individual interpretations, creating more problems not only for themselves but the whole country. And this Court has proven itself so feckless that I wouldn't be surprised if they (enough of them) come to the point of doing the ultimate punt on first down and just get rid of the ball on the AEA.

Again, not advocating they do so but I have lost faith in this Court.

---

Thanks for the response. It seems like this court intends to disappoint both sides, at different times, but in every way possible.

The court used to be able to be counted on to be consistent with how it would rule, one way or another, but now it seems like they're ruling solely on the feels. Oh well, this is the new normal for the next few decades with this court.

SCOTUS has never, ever been consistent (well, unless you want to go back to the first 50 years), and in the legal world has long been regarded as the least predictable of our courts.

Which makes sense because they functionally have no boss and an assortment of 9 variously politically motivated folks deciding what cases to take and how to align on opinions.

SCOTUS and Congress have had 237 years to make changes to the AEA, repeal it or rule it unconstitutional. To me, those options are now off the table as Trump has made the proclamation.

The remedies for SCOTUS should be limited to whether the proclamation was proper and they can provide some opining on "due process".

Outside of that, they should sit down and STFU. Their role is limited to the above. They don't get to nibble around the edges due to fear of public opinion, their own political feelings, or any sense of superiority they may think (incorrectly) they have.

And if there are enough folks thinking what Trump is doing is wrong, then you can make your voice heard in November 2026 and again 2028. Or you can get 2/3s of the Senate to switch horses and put Vance in charge.

amuse has an excellent article about how effed up this all is. Tidbit:

Quote:

---

The first breach of norms is conceptual: the Court fashioned relief for nonparties. Rule 23 draws a bright line. Until a class is certified, unnamed persons are strangers to the litigation. A district judge lacks power to issue injunctive relief for them, and an appellate court possesses no jurisdiction over their claims. The Supreme Court's midnight order ignored that limit. By invoking the phrase "putative class," the Justices acknowledged that certification had not occurred, then treated that absence as legally irrelevant. The result is a nationwide injunction without the findings, typicality analysis, or adequacy inquiry that Rule 23 demands. If such an order is permissible, class certification becomes optional whenever litigants can frame urgent equities.

A second breach is procedural. The Court interposed itself before the ordinary course of litigation concluded. No merits decision existed, no district judge had completed factfinding, and the Fifth Circuit had received but not resolved a stay request. For years, the Court has chastised litigants who seek premature relief, citing the virtue of allowing lower tribunals to work. In travelban and asylum cases, for example, the Justices urged patience, sometimes leaving controversial policies in limbo for months. Yet in this matter the American Civil Liberties Union, already engaged in what critics describe as serial forum shopping and duplicative filings from Colorado to New York, escaped even a gentle reprimand. The majority's order remained silent on those tactics, rewarding procedural gamesmanship instead of discouraging it. Faced with the prospect of detainees boarding planes, the Court intervened instantly, even though its own April 7 ruling placed the onus on the detainees to litigate in Texas. Consistency in procedural posture, and in the Court's willingness to police abusive litigation behavior, ought not depend on the political identity of the President who signs the executive order.

A third breach is functional. By enjoining removals on an undefined national scale, the Court commandeered powers textually assigned to the Executive. Deportation requires coordination among foreign ministries, charter airlines, and domestic detention facilities. When the judiciary suspends that coordination without a record, it does more than preserve jurisdiction; it intrudes into the mechanics of foreign policy. Alexander Hamilton warned that such encroachment erodes republican checks. If a President must seek preapproval from judges each time he invokes a war statute, the capacity to defend the nation becomes hostage to judicial timetables.

Consider the Court's stated rationale. The April 19 stay rests on a fear of irreparable harm: once removed, a detainee may not easily return to vindicate an eventual victory. That harm is real, yet irreparability alone never suffices. Extraditions carry identical stakes; nevertheless, federal courts decline to halt them unless the petitioner demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits. And the only safeguard the Justices themselves imposed on April 7 was procedural: give each alien notice and enough time to file habeas. Thanks to the emergency hearing in Washington earlier on April 18, the record already shows that those notices were served and that detainees could, and many did, seek relief in Texas. Here the other merits questions remain unanswered. Is Tren de Aragua a hostile foreign power? Does its crossborder crime wave satisfy the invasion clause? The Supreme Court refused to say. Absent a merits foothold, the stay extends the Court's equitable reach far beyond historic practice.

One might counter that the stay is temporary, a mere procedural safeguard while the Fifth Circuit deliberates. The order, however, contains no expiration date. It freezes executive discretion "until further order," a phrase that often stretches into months. In that sense the stay operates as a preliminary injunction issued without the findings Rule 65 ordinarily requires. The Court is at once plaintiff, factfinder, and chancellor, a posture incompatible with separationofpowers theory.

---

LINK

Turley and Judge Wilkerson have some thoughts on all this.
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/04/19/the-supreme-court-halts-venezuelan-deportations-as-the-fourth-circuit-upholds-garcia-order/#more-230944

Very powerful opinion from Alito!

But why doesn't he say there us no due process for illegals? I read here that illegals don't get due process. Why hasn't a anyone told him? He needs new clerks!

From comments

Quote:

---

Did John Roberts get involved at all, or say one word, when American citizens who exercised their 1A rights on January 6 were being locked up in DC's Gulag without due process for YEARS … with DC judges refusing all change of venue requests …. and with corrupt, Trump-hating, deranged DC judges actually bragging about their 100% conviction rate?
No, he did not say a thing. No statements issued from Roberts' Supreme Court. Not a peep. Why not?
All during Covid Tyranny, as they stripped away our civil rights, did we hear from the Supreme Court?
Nope. Or did I miss it?
But now we are told that every illegal alien gangbanger deserves their day in court? Their due process rights? WTF?
We don't even know who these people are! Biden flew them in by the millions, facilitated their arrivals, paying for everything, and now Trump cannot summarily remove them and fly them out? Bullshlt.
Oh, but their rights? No. How about this: The only "rights" they have is the right to a speedy removal from this country.
Suspend Habeas and get them out. F the Roberts court.

---

Who was locked up for years without due process? Weird how Alito and Thomas didn't speak up for them!