Supreme Court bars Trump from removing Venezuelan Nationals
The Supreme Court extended its ban on removal from the United States for Venezuelan men who are currently in immigration detention in the northern region Texas on Friday afternoon. In an unsigned eight-page opinion, the justices sent back the case to a federal appellate court for a second look and blocked the Trump Administration from removing the men under an 18th century wartime law from the United States until the appeals were resolved. The court ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 5th Circuit, to determine what procedures detainees can use to challenge removals. It indicated that the procedures used by the government in April, when they were ready to remove detainees before the Supreme Court intervened, did not satisfy the Constitution’s guarantee for fair treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito wrote a 14-page dissenting opinion from the court order. Alito believed that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to grant any relief. The order cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which gives the president the authority to detain and remove citizens of an enemy country without a hearing, or any other review from a court, if Congress declares a war, or there is a “predatory invasion” or “invasion.” This law has been invoked only three times: during the War of 1812; World War I; and World War II. In his March 15th order, Trump stated that members of Tren de Aragua “perpetrated, attempted, and threatened an invasion or predatory intrusion” against the United States. He concluded that any Venezuelan citizen living in the United States over 14 years of age can be “apprehended and restrained, secured and removed” as an alien enemy. Even before Trump’s orders went into effect, detainees in Washington, D.C., went to federal court to ask Chief U.S. district Judge James Boasberg for a stop to their removal, and to challenge their designation under the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg ordered the federal government to not remove anyone under the Alien Enemies Act. However, news reports revealed that over 200 noncitizens from the United States were transported to El Salvador on March 15, following Boasberg’s order. The detainees went to El Salvador’s notorious prison of maximum security. The Supreme Court halted Boasberg’s order on April 7. It explained that detainees brought their challenge to the wrong place. Because they were contesting their designation as alien enemy, they should have filed their petitions as habeas corpus, in Texas, where the were being held, instead of in Washington. The Supreme Court also instructed the government to provide notice of any aliens designated for removal pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. This notice must be given in a timely manner so that they can challenge the removal. After receiving these instructions, a group Venezuelan men held in immigration custody in northern Texas sought to block their removal in accordance with the Alien Enemies Act. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix refused their request. He said that the detainees “were not facing such an immediate threat.” They also told him that even those men who received notices only received them in English, despite the fact that most of them only speak Spanish. The notices also did not inform these men about their right to challenge their designation as ‘alien enemies.’ The Supreme Court ordered that the government “not remove any member” of the proposed class of detainees until the Supreme Court indicated otherwise. This order was issued shortly before 1 am on April 19. In their unsigned opinion, issued on Friday afternoon by the justices, they explained that the court had erred in dismissing the detainees appeal because it did not have the authority to review it. The court argued that appeals courts have the authority to review non-final court orders that “have the practical effect of refusing a injunction.” When a federal court fails to act “in the face a high-risk of’serious and perhaps irreparable’ consequences”, the court found that this was exactly what happened when Hendrix failed to rule on the request of the detainees for more than fourteen hours. The court noted that the Trump administration had not challenged the detainees’ description of the barebones notification provided to them or that they were preparing to remove the detainees before the Supreme Court intervened in April. The justices also said that when the Trump administration stated that it could not “provide for the returns” of Kilmar Garcia, a Marylander who the government admitted was mistakenly sent into an El Salvadoran jail, “the detainees’ interest are therefore particularly weighty.” The justices also stressed that they weren’t addressing the question of whether detainees could be removed under the Alien Enemies Act. They simply “recognize
that the Government’s national interest is important and that it must be pursued in accordance with the Constitution.” Lower courts should deal with AEA cases quickly in light of this.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion where he emphasized the importance of the Government’s national security interest and the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution. He also added that if he had his way, he would not have sent the case back to lower courts, but kept it at the Supreme Court in order to resolve “critical legal questions” quickly. In his dissenting opinion, Alito disputed that the majority had suggested that Hendrix effectively denied the detainees request by failing to act upon it. He called it a “mischaracterization” of what happened in District Court. Instead, he posited that the detainees made an “extraordinary request,” and Hendrix simply worked very hard to respond quickly but carefully.
Alito argued that detainees did not qualify for emergency relief, because they had failed to show that they would succeed on the merits. This is a requirement for temporary relief. Alito argued that the detainees would not be able to prove that they are likely to be able to establish that class-based relief is available in habeas proceedings and that a group could be certified.
Posted in Emergency appeals and applications, Featured
Cases: A.A.R.P. v. Trump
Recommended Citation:
Amy Howe
Supreme Court bars Trump from removing Venezuelan citizens
SCOTUSblog
(May. 16, 2025, 5:33 PM),
