The Supreme Court of the United States (SC) on Saturday temporarily prohibited the administration of President Donald Trump to deport Venezuelan men in immigration custody after their lawyers said they were at imminent risk of expulsion without the judicial review previously required by the judges.
“The government is ordered that no member of the alleged class of detainees from the United States up to the most order of this court,” the judges said in a brief unpleasant decision.
The White House on Saturday did not respond immediately to a request for comments.
Clarence Thomas Conservative Judges and Samuel Alito publicly disagree with the decision, issued around 12:55 am
The lawyers of the American Union of Civil Liberties (ACLU) filed urgent applications on Friday in multiple courts, including the US SC. UU., Uriving immediate measures after informing that some of the men had already been loaded on buses and told them that they should be deported.
ACLU said that rapid developments meant that the administration was prepared to deport men who used a law of 1798 that has historically been used only in times of war without providing them with a realistic opportunity to dispute their elimination, as required by the SC.
“These men were imminent of spending their lives in a horrible foreign prison without having had the opportunity to go to court. We are relieved that the Supreme Court has not allowed the administration to take them to the way in which others were last month,” said Lee Glernt, the main lawyer of the ACLU in the case, in a statement today.
The case raises questions about the adhesion of the Trump administration to the limits established by the SC. It contracts the risk of a significant shock between the two coefficient branches of the government and potentially a complete constitutional crisis.
Chosen last year in a promise to take energetic measures against migrants, Trump invoked the 1798 alien enemies law in an attempt to quickly deport the members of the train of Aragua, a criminal gang originating from Venezuelan prisons that his administration label a terrorist group.
The president and his major assistants have affirmed that their executive branch gives them wide authority on immigration matters, testing the balance of power between the branches of the government.
Battles in several courts
During a hearing on Friday, a government lawyer said in a related case that the Department of National Security was unaware of plans to deport men, but there could be deportations on Saturday.
Trump won a victory on Friday when an appeal court suspended a threat from the James Boasberg district judge of contempt charges.
Boasberg also denied an ACLU request to block Trump to deport the alleged train members of Aragua, citing a ruling from the Supreme Court of April 7 that allowed Trump to use the Alien Enemies Law, although with certain limits.
Boasberg said he was concerned that the government would deport additional people as soon as Saturday, but “at this point I don’t think he has the power to do something about it.”
Previously, Trump requested the accusation of Boasberg after an adverse ruling, which caused a rare reprimand of the president of the president of the United States, John Roberts.
While an audience took place in the Boasberg court, ACLU worked on a separate track to stop the deportations of Venezuelans held in Texas.
ACLU lawyers presented to the Supreme Court after not obtaining a quick response from the previous presentations on Friday before the United States District Judge, James Hendrix, in Abilene, Texas, and the fifth Court of Appeals of the United States Circuit in New Orleans to block deportations of this type.
In Saturday, the SC invited the Administration to present an response to the ACLU request after the minutes of the 5th circuit.
ACLU said men had received forms that indicated that they were classified as members of the Aragua train.
In question, it is whether the Trump administration has complied with the SC standard to provide detainees with due process before sending them to another country, possibly to the notorious prison in El Salvador, where others are imprisoned.
It was not clear on Friday how many people should be deported and where they could be taken.
How much notice is enough?
Its deportation would be the first from the 5-4 decision of the SC that allowed the removals under the law of 1798 while specifying that “the notice must occur within a reasonable time and in such a way that they allow them to seek relief of habeas in the appropriate place before said removal occurs.”
Habeas Corpus relief refers to the right of detainees to challenge the legality of their detention. It is considered a fair base under the law of the United States.
The SC did not indicate how much notice it must be provided. The lawyers from all over the country have asked that migrants receive a 30 -day warning to allow them to dispute their deportations.
The Trump administration has not said publicly how much notice is intended to give migrants.
The ACLU presented a photo of one of the notices before the court.
“He has decided to be an alien enemy subject to apprehension, moderation and elimination,” reads the notice.
The recipient’s name was obscured, and it was observed that the migrant refused to sign it on Friday.
When asked about the deportations planned on Friday, Trump said he was not familiar with the particular case, but added: “If they are bad people, it would certainly authorize it.”
“That’s why I was chosen. A judge was not chosen,” he told the White House journalists.
Defensor lawyers and Democrats in Congress have pressed to the Administration to demonstrate how Venezuelans are members of the gang, which is active in trafficking in persons and other crimes in South America, but has a smaller presence in the United States.
“We are not going to reveal the details of the operations contrary to terrorism, but we are complying with the Supreme Court ruling,” said Assistant National Security Secretary McLaughlin on Friday in a statement on Friday.
On March 15, the Trump administration deported more than 130 alleged members of the Aragua train to El Salvador.
Many of the lawyers and members of the migrants’ family say that they were not gang members and that they had no opportunity to dispute the government statement they were.
