Sneak Preview: The Supreme Court Just Gave The Trump Administration Everything It Wanted—Almost

Summary

Summary of "Sneak Preview: The Supreme Court Just Gave The Trump Administration Everything It Wanted—Almost"

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern, Slate Senior Writer
Release Date: April 8, 2025

---

Introduction

In the April 8, 2025 episode of Amicus, host Dahlia Lithwick delves into a pivotal Supreme Court decision affecting the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. The episode, titled "Sneak Preview: The Supreme Court Just Gave The Trump Administration Everything It Wanted—Almost," features an in-depth discussion with Mark Joseph Stern, a senior writer at Slate, who provides expert analysis on the legal ramifications of the Court's ruling.

Background: The Alien Enemies Act and Deportation to El Salvador

The episode opens with Lithwick contextualizing the urgency of the Supreme Court's decision. Since March 15, the Trump administration has been deporting hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to the SECOT megaprison in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act—a statute traditionally reserved for times of declared war. This move has sparked significant legal challenges, questioning the administration's authority and the legality of using such powers for deportations.

Supreme Court's Decision: Lifting the Temporary Restraining Order

Lithwick highlights that the Supreme Court issued an unsigned per curiam order by a narrow 5-4 margin on the Monday preceding the episode's release. This decision effectively allows the Trump administration to continue its deportation practices, overturning the temporary restraining order (TRO) previously issued by Judge James Boasberg in the D.C. courtroom.

Dahlia Lithwick remarks at [00:09]:

"We are releasing this extra episode of Amicus on Tuesday afternoon because the tsunami of cases now hitting the Supreme Court are on this question of the Alien Enemies Act."

Mark Joseph Stern elaborates at [02:15]:

"The court lifted the temporary restraining order that Judge Boasberg had issued barring the Trump administration from continuing to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act."

Impact on Class Action Lawsuit vs. Individual Habeas Corpus Petitions

The core of the discussion centers on two intertwined cases:

1. Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Case: Previously discussed in another episode, this case challenges the legality of the deportation under the Alien Enemies Act.

2. Class Action Suit in D.C.: This broader lawsuit, certified by Judge Boasberg, represents several hundred Venezuelan migrants seeking to halt the deportation program.

The Supreme Court's ruling mandates that plaintiffs abandon their class action status and instead pursue individual habeas corpus petitions in the districts where they are confined—primarily South Texas, a jurisdiction known for its conservative stance and Trump-appointed judges.

Mark Joseph Stern explains at [02:15]:

"The Supreme Court... is ordering all of these plaintiffs to instead file much narrower habeas petitions."

Challenges for Migrants Post-Decision

Lithwick underscores the systemic issues arising from the Court's decision. Moving from a collective class action to individual lawsuits places an immense burden on detainees, many of whom lack adequate legal representation or resources to navigate the complex habeas corpus process.

Dahlia Lithwick observes at [04:52]:

"Very few of these detainees have a lawyer on speed dial... the very notion that each and every one of these people has access to and the ability to seek legal representation in a habeas case is in and of itself kind of bonkers."

Mark Joseph Stern concurs at [05:27]:

"They are going to be stuck trying to find lawyers... dealing with a government that has at every turn said, we want to deport these people as fast as possible and shown no interest or respect in their own rights to protest their rendition to El Salvador."

Legal and Humanitarian Implications

The discussion highlights the Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of legal avenues available to the migrants, effectively stifling broad constitutional challenges. By dismissing the class action, the Court removes a unified front against the deportation policy, rendering individual plaintiffs vulnerable to inconsistent and potentially biased judicial outcomes in conservative districts.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a reflection on the broader implications of the Supreme Court's decision. By siding with the administration's deportation strategy, the Court has set a precedent that could limit future legal challenges against executive actions perceived as overreaching. The dismantling of the class action not only hampers the efficiency of legal redress for the migrants but also raises concerns about access to justice for marginalized populations.

Dahlia Lithwick wraps up at [06:21]:

"We'll be back with your regularly scheduled Amicus episode on Saturday morning. Until then, take good care there."

---

This episode of Amicus provides a comprehensive analysis of a critical Supreme Court decision, shedding light on its significant impact on both legal processes and the lives of Venezuelan migrants facing deportation. Through expert insights and detailed examination, listeners gain a clear understanding of the challenges and ramifications stemming from the Court's ruling.

Transcript

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Hi, I'm Dahlia Lithwick. This is Amicus Late's podcast about the courts, the law, and the US Supreme Court. We are releasing this extra episode of Amicus on Tuesday afternoon because the tsunami of cases now hitting the Supreme Court are on this question of the Alien Enemies Act. And a black site in El Salvador seems to be coming to a head at the high court this week, culminating in another unsigned per curium order that came down Monday evening in a case we've been monitoring since its inception on March 15, when the administration tossed several hundred Venezuelan migrants onto planes and sent them to the SECOT megaprison in El Salvador under exceedingly dubious legal authority. On Monday night, the supreme court, by a 5 to 4 margin, said, bygones, we're gonna let the government go ahead, keep doing what they're doing, because those renditioned prisoners, none of whom is an enemy alien in a declared war against the United States, filed suit the wrong way in the wrong court. Oh, well, mistakes were made. Joining us to discuss what I think is a really big deal that is getting lost in financial news is Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Joseph Stern, who stayed up really late Monday night writing about this. Hi, Mark.

[Mark Joseph Stern]

Hi, Dalia.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

So listen, there's two distinct cases that are getting a lot of attention. They have overlapping issues, but they are two very different cases. One is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. We discussed that case with his lawyer on this weekend's show. The other is this class action suit that has been in front of Judge James Boasberg in a D.C. courtroom. I think you and I have been covering this almost since it was filed. And the Supreme Court took action in both cases on Monday. A tiny step in one case, a huge step in the other. So I wonder, can we start with that Boasberg case? What did the court do on Monday evening?

[Mark Joseph Stern]

So the court lifted the temporary restraining order that Judge Boasberg had issued barring the Trump administration from continuing to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Judge Boasberg had certified this class action on behalf of these individuals, had issued this restraining order, saying that the program was likely illegal. The government appealed and won at the Supreme Court, which said, nope, we are setting aside the restraining order. We are essentially dissolving the class action in effect, and we are ordering all of these plaintiffs to instead file much narrower habeas petitions. Why does that matter? The plaintiffs had raised these really broad claims in Judge Boasberg's court under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and The Administrative Procedure act, arguing that this entire scheme was unlawful. Um, but now they will have to file these individual petitions that are technically lawsuits against the warden or custodian of the prison where they're being held, arguing that they are being held unlawfully. That is what a petition for habeas corpus is. And it's just a much narrower, more inefficient way to bring a challenge here. And also, we can get into this. It doesn't make a ton of sense because these individuals are not actually asking to be released from their detention centers in Texas, which is what a traditional habeas suit would. Would look like. They are just asking not to get sent to El Salvador and to be confined in the United States instead of a foreign country. And yet the Supreme Court said, nope, sorry, this all has to go under habeas corpus. In the districts of their confinement, which are those individuals still being held in the United States who have not yet been sent to El Salvador is South Texas. That is, of course, a district filled with Trump appointed super conservative judges. And it is a district that falls within the hard right 5th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals. So all of these plaintiffs, the named plaintiffs, the entire class of migrants affected here, they have effectively been thrown out of Judge Boasberg's federal courtroom in D.C. and they have been told to try their luck elsewhere, probably one by one, not through a class action, not through a very broad suit under due process or the Administrative Procedure act, but instead as a habeas petition in Texas district court.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Is it worth stopping for a minute to just note that very few of these detainees have a lawyer on speed dial, can afford a lawyer, have family members who can say, hey, here's your habeas lawyer. In other words, instead of being swept up in a class where they all suffer similar harms and there's a similar constitutional injury, the very notion that each and every one of these people has access to and the ability to seek legal representation in a habeas case is in and of itself kind of bonkers.

[Mark Joseph Stern]

Mark, it's ridiculous. The entire point of this class action was, as you said, to sweep up everyone and to raise these very broad claims on the merits, saying that this invocation of the Alien Enemies act is unlawful, this denial of due process is just fundamentally illegal, and that the entire government scheme in effect here has to be restrained. That was the magic of Judge Boasberg's restraining order. And so with it set aside, and with all these plaintiffs being told, sorry, go to Texas, they're going to be stuck trying to find lawyers trying to find translators racing to the courthouse to file these petitions and then dealing with a government that has at every turn said, we want to deport these people as fast as possible and shown no interest or respect in their own rights to protest their rendition to El Salvador.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Slate plus members can access the full interview right now. You can subscribe to Slate plus directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or you can visit slate.com amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. We'll be back with your regularly scheduled Amicus episode on Saturday morning. Until then, take good care there.