“The court emphasized that the men — whom the Trump administration has labeled “alien enemies” — are entitled to more due process than the administration has so far provided. That means advance notice of their deportations and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the deportations in court, the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion.”
“When a Guatemalan man sued the Trump administration in March for deporting him to Mexico despite a fear of persecution, immigration officials had a response: The man told them himself he was not afraid to be sent there.
But in a late Friday court filing, the administration acknowledged that this claim — a key plank of the government’s response to a high-stakes class action lawsuit — was based on erroneous information.”
“The Trump-appointed judge found that the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act “exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.””
“The Declaration of Independence referred to “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The First Amendment strictly specifies that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Both are rooted in the understanding that rights don’t come from government but are inherent in individuals. The government must respect our rights whether or not it agrees with how we exercise them so long as we, in turn, respect others’ equal rights.
In February, Eugene Volokh of the Hoover Institution and the UCLA School of Law wrote that “when it comes to aliens and immigration law, the First Amendment questions aren’t settled” in a discussion about the constitutionality of deporting noncitizens for their speech. That may still be true, but cases like American Association of University Professors v. Rubio show at least some federal judges viewing First Amendment protections as universally applicable, which squares with American history.
Campus radicals have the same free speech rights as we all possess, even if they’re just visiting.”
“The Justice Department failed to publicly disclose documents in the now-dismissed corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams by a Friday deadline, in apparent defiance of a court order.
The documents in question could shed light on the evidence and legal arguments prosecutors presented to a judge in order to obtain a search warrant in the investigation of the mayor, who is running for reelection. That material may be particularly revelatory because the public likely won’t see any other evidence related to the case, now that it has been dismissed.”
“First, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to tax and impose tariffs. Congress has delegated that authority to the executive branch in a handful of trade laws passed over the course of the last century, but the president’s power in this area is a function of the particular language contained in those statutes. (The likely reason that Trump invoked IEEPA is that, unlike the more commonly invoked trade laws, IEEPA does not require administrative investigations or consultations with Congress.)
Second, the relevant provision of the IEEPA contains a bunch of words, but none of those words is “tariffs” or “taxes.”
Indeed, no president before Trump has ever used the IEEPA to impose tariffs. The law has typically been deployed to impose economic sanctions, such as prohibitions on transactions with designated foreign governments or businesses.
In theory, these facts should resonate with the Republican appointees on the court, who typically hold themselves out as committed textualists, eager to adhere only to the words on the page.
Third, even if the IEEPA granted the president the authority to impose tariffs, there are no actual “emergencies” here that would support them (though we will return to this notion).
The law authorizes the president to act when there is “an unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,” and the Trump administration has claimed that there are several different emergencies. They include the opioid crisis and illegal immigration, which Trump has invoked to support tariffs against Canada, Mexico and China. To support other global tariffs, Trump has claimed that the country’s “trade deficits” constitute the emergency.
At least as a factual matter, credible independent analysts have generally rejected these claims. Take the country’s trade deficits. “They’re not actually harmful any more than it’s somehow harmful if I have a trade deficit with my local supermarket,” Somin said. “I buy a lot of things from them, but they virtually never buy anything from me.”
Fourth, as the California complaint correctly notes, IEEPA was passed as part of an effort in the 1970s to limit the president’s emergency economic powers. Congress did not intend to expand the president’s powers or to give him carte blanche to overhaul the global trading system.
That fact may not move the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court if the issue gets to them — they generally oppose the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation — but it is likely to prove relevant to the three Democratic appointees.”
…
” The Supreme Court might also side with the Trump administration given that the court is generally deferential to the president’s handling of foreign policy and his assessment of what constitutes a national emergency. We may not have had any national emergencies before Trump returned to office, but ironically, his tariffs may themselves have caused a global emergency — one that could give the justices reason to pause before coming in against the president in a way that could now severely constrain his powers on the global stage and diminish his international diplomatic standing.”
Trump defying a Supreme Court order is a constitutional crisis. The crisis comes to a head with Congress derelict in its duty. The only one with the power to enforce limits on the president’s power is Congress through its power of impeachment and a little bit through passing legislation that restrains the president.
“At the heart of the Trump administration’s position is a naked assertion of unchecked power. Once the federal government has deported someone to the hellish prison in El Salvador, the Trump administration asserts, there is nothing that anyone—especially not a federal judge—can do about it. What is worse, by the administration’s own admission, it does not matter whether the deportee was lawfully removed in the first place or not. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor has accurately observed, “the Government’s argument…implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.” The word for what Sotomayor is describing is despotism.”
“In an opinion issued on Wednesday, a federal judge found that the evidence “strongly support[s]” the conclusion that the Trump administration “willfully disobeyed” a March 15 order temporarily barring the removal of suspected Venezuelan gang members as “alien enemies.” James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says the government’s actions “demonstrate a willful disregard” for that order, “sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.””
“President Donald Trump has cracked down on immigration in his second term, deporting undocumented migrants and perhaps citizens next.
In the process, members of Trump’s administration have demonstrated an overt hostility to basic rights of due process.
On March 12, agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador. Three days later, the government deported him back to El Salvador to be held in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), an overcrowded and dangerous mega-prison where the country’s president offered to warehouse deportees from the U.S.
There is much to oppose in that action, perhaps most of all that Abrego Garcia—who had previously been granted a reprieve from deportation—was denied any semblance of due process when government agents grabbed him up, told him his protected status had been revoked, and shuffled him out of the country, all within the span of a long weekend.
The Trump administration contends Abrego Garcia is not entitled to due process, in part because he is a member of the violent street gang MS-13. “That may be true,” wrote Cato Institute scholar David Post. “The government, however, has provided no evidence, to a grand jury or to a magistrate or to any third party, that it is true.”
Nevertheless, the government is sticking by the claim.”
…
“According to an April order by Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court of Maryland, Abrego Garcia immigrated from El Salvador to flee gang violence, settling in Maryland with his brother, a U.S. citizen. After he was arrested in 2019 and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation, he told an immigration judge he would be subject to gang retaliation if he was sent back. The judge denied his request for bond and ordered him detained “pending the outcome of his requested relief from deportation,” as Xinis wrote. (By itself, a denial of bond is not indicative that he presents any danger: “The immigration judge is only taking at face value any evidence that the government provides,” said David Bier of the Cato Institute. “It is not assessing its underlying validity at that stage.”)
Later that year, “following a full evidentiary hearing, the [immigration judge] granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador,” which “prohibits [the Department of Homeland Security] from returning an alien to the specific country in which he faces clear probability of persecution,” Xinis added.”
…
“Vance’s post is galling for how little he seems to care about due process, the constitutional provision nominally preventing the government from throwing any of us in prison for any reason it wishes. That this seems to reflect the general attitude of the administration in which he serves would be frightening even if not for the fact that its only justification is that it simply doesn’t make mistakes when identifying terrorists and gang members.
“Ask the people weeping over the lack of due process what precisely they propose for dealing with [former President Joe] Biden’s millions and millions of illegals,” Vance wrote. “And with reasonable resource and administrative judge constraints, does their solution allow us to deport at least a few million people per year?”
This has nothing to do with deporting the undocumented: A judge already adjudicated Abrego Garcia’s case and granted him a reprieve from deportation. If the Trump administration had contrary evidence indicating he should instead be deported, then it should present that evidence in a court of law.
Instead, what evidence has been presented is flimsy, to say the least. “The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York—a place he has never lived,” Xinis wrote. “No evidence before the Court connects Abrego García to MS-13 or any other criminal organization.”
Even what flimsy evidence there is has fallen apart in recent days: That single “vague, uncorroborated allegation” was lodged by Ivan Mendez, a Maryland police officer who arrested Abrego Garcia in 2019. Within days, Mendez was suspended, and would later be indicted, for giving “confidential information” about “an on-going police investigation” to “a commercial sex worker who he was paying in exchange for sexual acts,” according to the Prince George’s County Police Department.”
…
“”When Garcia was arrested he was found with rolls of cash and drugs,” wrote Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). “He was arrested with two other members of MS-13” while “wearing what is effectively MS-13’s uniform.””
…
“wearing NBA merch is not a crime. And if Abrego Garcia were actually associating with MS-13 members, or if he were abusive to his wife, then these are details that would be extremely pertinent to bring up in a court of law.
Instead, the administration has obfuscated even in the face of judicial action. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lower court order finding deportees were entitled to due process and instructing the government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. The administration even admitted in court filings that Abrego Garcia was deported “because of an administrative error.” (The attorney who filed the brief containing that language was apparently later suspended.)
Nevertheless, the administration insists it has no ability to retrieve Abrego Garcia from the Salvadoran prison where the U.S. government is currently paying $25,000 to house him—what Reason’s Damon Root called “a naked assertion of unchecked power.” In the Oval Office, Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele each claimed they were unable to return the man mistakenly deported and housed in a facility intended for terrorists.”