By Andrew Chung
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court removed yet another hurdle from one of President Donald Trump’s most fervently sought initiatives — large-scale deportations — once more demonstrating its readiness to support his stringent stance on immigration. However, the court has indicated certain concerns regarding the manner in which he is implementing these measures.
Since Trump came back to the White House in January, the court has had to step in on an urgent basis for seven different legal battles concerning his efforts to tighten immigration policies. Most recently, it allowed Trump’s administration to terminate the provisional legal standing granted to hundreds of thousands of immigrants under humanitarian grounds by former President Joe Biden as legal disputes continue in lower courts.
On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned a judge’s directive that had suspended the end of immigration “parole” for over 500,000 immigrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. Additionally, on May 19, the court rescinded another judge’s ruling that barred the conclusion of “temporary protected status” for around 300,000 Venezuelan nationals.
In certain instances though, the justices have determined that the administration is obligated to provide fair treatment to migrants, in accordance with the due process clause guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
“More than any other president in recent U.S. history, this one has been particularly forceful in swiftly expelling non-citizens from the nation,” stated Kevin Johnson, an authority on immigration and public interest law at the University of California, Davis.
Johnson further noted that no contemporary president has shown such readiness in deporting non-citizens without proper legal procedures.
This situation has compelled the Supreme Court to oversee the boundaries of the administration’s activities, though not as much regarding the legality of Trump’s core policies. The court’s 6-3 conservative-leaning majority comprises three justices nominated by Trump during his initial presidential term.
“President Trump is exercising his legal right to remove individuals who entered the country illegally and safeguard Americans. Although the Supreme Court has rightly recognized the president’s jurisdiction in certain instances, at times they’ve created additional procedural protections for these immigrants which could compromise national safety. We firmly believe our approach complies with the law and we remain committed to upholding President Trump’s pledges,” stated White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson.
On two occasions —April 7 and May 16—the justices have imposed restrictions on the government’s efforts to enforce Trump’s use of an old statute known as the Alien Enemies Act from 1798. This act was traditionally used solely during times of war but now aims at expediting the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants whom they claim belong to the Tren de Aragua gang. However, both attorneys representing these individuals and their families contest this assertion about gang affiliations.
On May 16, the justices additionally ruled that an attempt by the administration to remove migrants from a detention facility in Texas did not meet fundamental constitutional standards. The court noted that providing migrants with “approximately 24 hours’ notice prior to deportation, without details on how they can assert their procedural rights to challenge this action, clearly falls short.”
Generally, due process mandates that the government must offer notification and a chance for a hearing prior to implementing specific unfavorable actions.
The court hasn’t completely prohibited the administration from carrying out these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, since the judges haven’t determined whether applying the statute for such actions is legal. The federal government previously used the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to detain and expel individuals of Japanese, German, and Italian heritage.
Elora Mukherjee, who leads Columbia Law School’s immigration rights clinic, stated, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld certain fundamental tenets of constitutional law, including the fact that the due process clause pertains to everyone within US territory.”
Mukherjee stated that even individuals suspected of being gang members, the court has made it abundantly clear that they must receive proper notification prior to facing immediate deportation from the United States.
A WRONGLY DEPORTED MAN
In another instance, the court directed on April 10 that the administration should assist in releasing Kilmer Abrego García from detention in El Salvador. It has been admitted by the administration that they wrongfully deported Abrego García to El Salvador when he was actually residing in Maryland.
The administration has not yet sent Abrego Garcia back to the United States, an action that some critics view as defying the Supreme Court’s decision. On March 15th, over 200 individuals were expelled to El Salvador and placed inside one of their large anti-terror prisons. This transfer was part of an arrangement wherein the U.S. pays President Nayib Bukele’s government six million dollars.
Ilya Somin, who teaches constitutional law at George Mason University, noted that the Supreme Court as a whole has attempted to limit some of the administration’s “most egregious and overtly unlawful policies” while still maintaining their usual respect for executive power concerning immigration matters.
I believe they’ve put considerable effort into finding a middle ground,” stated Somin regarding the AlienEnemies Act and the Abrego-Garcia cases. “However, I still feel there’s an overly generous allowance, and a leniency towards matters that wouldn’t be acceptable beyond the realm of immigration law.
The respect for authority was evident in the court’s rulings over the last two weeks, allowing Trump to end the temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously granted to migrants. These significant decrees were made without the court providing any explanation, as pointed out by Mukherjee.
Together, these two rulings revoke immigration status and legal safeguards in the U.S. for over 800,000 individuals. This has severe consequences for everyone impacted,” Mukherjee stated. “These persons might face deportation, division within families, loss of employment, and potentially even risk their lives upon being expelled.
TRAVEL BAN RULING
During his presidency from 2017 to 2021, Trump implemented stringent immigration measures. In 2018, he secured a significant triumph when the Supreme Court supported his travel restriction policy aimed at individuals hailing from multiple predominantly Islamic nations.
In 2020, the court halted former President Trump’s attempt to terminate a program designed to shield from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants—commonly referred to as “Dreamers”—who had entered the U.S. unlawfully during their childhood years.
Several significant immigration-related cases are awaiting decisions from the justices, including an attempt by Trump to strictly implement his January executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship—a policy that contradicts the long-standing understanding of the Constitution granting citizenship almost universally to babies born within U.S. territory. Oral arguments for this case were held on May 15, but a ruling has not been issued yet.
A separate instance involves the government’s attempts to boost the policy of expelling immigrants to nations not their own, even shipping them off to conflict-ridden locations like South Sudan.
The U.S. District Judge from Boston, Brian Murphy, mandated that individuals bound for what are referred to as “third countries” must be informed and provided with an adequate opportunity to pursue legal remedies by demonstrating potential harm they might encounter upon their transfer.
On May 21, Murphy determined that the administration had breached his court directive by trying to expel immigrants to South Sudan. These individuals are currently detained at a military facility in Djibouti.
On May 27, the administration requested that the justices overturn Murphy’s directive since they argued that the third-country procedure is essential for deporting immigrants who have committed offenses. This is due to the fact that many of these individuals’ home countries frequently refuse to accept them back.
Johnson forecasted that the Supreme Court will support the migrants in this controversy.
Johnson stated that the court is likely to uphold the due process rights of a non-citizen prior to their deportation to another nation.
(Reported by Andrew Chung in New York; Additional reporting by John Kruzel; Edited by Will Dunham)
Leave a Reply