In a striking dissent, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have sharply criticized the Court's liberal majority for their hasty and legally questionable decision to obstruct President Donald Trump's legitimate efforts to deport dangerous foreign nationals under the Alien Enemies Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned emergency order in the dead of night, preventing President Trump from deporting foreign nationals associated with the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. These individuals are currently detained at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas under the provisions of the Alien Enemies Act, a law that has been in place for centuries.
The order stated, There is before the Court an application on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible. The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. 1651(a). Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent from the Courts order. Statement from Justice Alito to follow.
The ruling was a response to an emergency appeal hastily filed by the ACLU on behalf of a putative class of noncitizen detainees. According to the Gateway Pundit, the ACLU claimed, Plaintiffs learned that the government has begun giving notices of removal to class members, in English only, which do not say how much time individuals have to contest their removal or even how to do so And officers last night told class members that they will be removed within 24 hours, which expires as early as this afternoon. Upon information and belief, individuals have already been loaded on to buses.
In a powerful dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Alito directly challenged the Courts liberal majority, condemning their last-minute injunction as legally dubious and procedurally inconsistent.
Alito wrote in his opinion, 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.
He continued, I refused to join the Courts order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trumpv. J.G.G., 604 U. S. (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures.
Alito argued that the Supreme Court only had jurisdiction if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction first. And the Fifth Circuit could only act if the order appealed from was a denial of a preliminary injunctionnot a temporary restraining order (TRO).
Alito was clear in his assertion that left-leaning groups like the ACLU were manipulating the process by prematurely appealing something that wasnt even formally denied. According to Alito, the High Court fell into this trap, which he claims violates precedent and basic legal procedure.
The emergency request did not stem from a real, appealable decision. Instead, the ACLU argued the district court had constructively denied a request by not acting fast enough.
Alito wrote, This Court had jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of the applicants appeal, and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction only if the supposed order that the applicants appealed amounted to the denial of a preliminary injunction. But here, the order that applicants appealed was what they viewed as the District Courts constructive denial of their request for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
Alito criticized the Supreme Court for intervening before the Fifth Circuit had the chance to weigh in, which violates the normal hierarchy of judicial review.
Alito wrote, When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief, and we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming. This Court, however, refused to wait.
Alito lambasted the majority for violating the Courts own Rule 23.3, which requires seeking relief in lower courts first except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
Alito pointed out that the government had not even been allowed to file a response, either in the Supreme Court or the lower courts, before the injunction was granted. He stressed that the Court acted solely on claims made by the applicantsillegal alien detaineeswithout any concrete evidence of imminent danger of removal.
The decision by the Supreme Court's liberal majority to block the lawful deportation of dangerous foreign nationals raises serious questions about the adherence to established legal procedures and the respect for the rule of law.
As Justice Alito's dissent highlights, the decision was made hastily, without due process, and without sufficient evidence to justify such an extraordinary measure. This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of maintaining the integrity of our legal system and the need for judicial restraint in the face of politically charged issues.
Login